Skip to main content

Full text of "Record of the Constitutional Commission: Proceedings and Debates Vol. III"

See other formats


HI IP M 

i 



* 






» « 


i 


i 


I 





iiaLAffSHNir riBimiv 



REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION OF 1986 


Sptorii 
nf tijp 

€ott0titMttDual (HommiBaton 


PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES 


VOLUME THREE 


Prepared by the Editorial/Publication Unit 
under the supervision of 

Hon. FLERIDA RUTH P. ROMERO 

Secretary-General 






^ * i t 

J 




Republic of the Philippines 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION OF 1986 


THE OFFICERS: 



NAPOLEON G. RAMA 

Hoor Leader 


JOSE D. CALDERON AHMAD DOMOCAO ALONTO 

Assr. Floor Leader Asst. Floor Leader 



FLERIDA RUTH P. ROMERO 

Secretary-General 



ROBERTO M. SAN ANDRES 

Sergeant-at-Arms 


COMMITTEES 


COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE, NATIONAL TERRITORY, 
AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES 



Decoroso R. Rosales 
Chairman 


I'i 


Gregorio J. Tingson 
Vice-Chairman 


COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP, BILL OF RIGHTS, 
POLITICAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AND ' 
HUMAN RIGHTS 



Jose B. Laurel, Jr. Joaquin G, Benias 

Chairman Vice-Chairman 


Members: Bemardo M. Villegas 

Felicitas S. Aquino 
Florangel Rosario Braid 
Jose N. Nolledo 
Minda Luz M. Quesada 
Edmundo G. Garcia 
Crispino M. de Castro 
Vicente B. Foz 
Adolfo S. Azcuna 


Members: Yusup R. Abubakar 

Rene V. Sarmiento 
Edmundo G. Garcia 
Francisco A. Rodrigo 
Eulogio R. Lerum 
Ambrosio B. Padilla 
Jose C. Colay CO 
Jaime S.L. Tadeo 
Bernardo M. Villegas 
Ponciano L. Bennagen 
Teodoro C. Bacani 
Teodulo C. Natividad 










COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE 


COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 



Hilario G. Davide, Jr. Adolfo S. Azcuna 
"Chairman Vice-Chairman 




Roberto R. Concepcion 
Chairman 


Ricardo J. Roniulo 
Vice-Chairman 


Members: 

Lorenzo M. Sumulong 
Yusup R. Abubakar 
Jose D. Calderon 
Francisco A. Rodrigo 
Ahmad Domocao Alonto 
Felicitas S. Aquino 
Alberto M.K. Jamir 
Roberto R. Concepcion 
Eulogio R. Lerum 
Rustico F. de los Reyes, Jr. 
Serafin V.C. Guingona 
Edmundo G. Garcia 
Efrain B. Trenas 


Members: 

Jose C. Colay CO 
Lorenzo M. Sumulong 
Alberto M.K. Jamir 
Florenz D. Regalado 
Jose E. Suarez 
Efrain B. Trenas 
Rene V. Sarmiento 
Lugum L. Uka 
Hilario G. Davide, Jr. 
Teodulo C. Natividad 
Ambrosio B. Padilla 
Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr. 
Adolfo S. Azcuna 


COMMITTEE ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS 

AND AGENCIES 



Lorenzo M. Sumulong 
Chairman 



Florenz D. Regalado 
Vice-Chairman 



Vicente B. Foz 
Chairman 



Cirilo A. Rigos 
Vice-Chairman 


Members: 

Napoleon G. Rama 
Jose D. Calderon 
Ahmad Domocao Alonto 
Roberto R. Concepcion 
Vicente B. Foz 
Regalado E. Maambong 
Alberto M.K. Jamir 
Hilario G. Davide, Jr. 
Teodulo C. Natividad 
Rene V. Sarmiento 
Felicitas S. Aquino 
Joaquin G. Bemas 
Eulogio R. Lerum 


Members: 

Crispino M. de Castro 
Christian S. Monsod 
Yusup R. Abubakar 
Bernardo M. Villegas 
Decosoro R. Rosales 
Florenz D. Regalado 
Roberto R. Concepcion 
Francisco A. Rodrigo 
Alberto M.K. Jamir 






COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 


COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY 
AND PATRIMONY 



Jose N. Nolledo 
Chairman 



Jose D. Calderon 
Vice-Chairman 



Bernardo M. Villegas Jaime S.L. Tadeo 

Chairman Vice-Oiairman 


Members: 

Gregorio J. Tingson 
Decoroso R. Rosales 
Ahmad Domocao Alonto 
Crispino M. de Castro 
Ponciano L. Bennagen 
Florenz D. Regalado 
Cirilo A. Rigos 
Alberto M.K. Jamir 
Bias F. Ople 


Members: 

Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon 
Ponciano L. Bennagen 
Ricardo J. Romulo 
Christian S. Monsod 
Rene V. Sarmiento 
Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr. 

Bias F. Ople 
Jose E. Suarez 
Lugum L. Uka 
Teodoro C. Bacani 
Teodulo C. Natividad 
Vicente B. Foz 
Wilfrido V. Villacorta 


COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY 
OF PUBLIC OFFICERS 


COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 



Christian S. Monsod Jose C. Colayco 

Chairman Vice-Chairman 



Wilfrido V. Villacorta 
Chairman 



Lugum L. Uka 
Vice-Chairman 


Members: 


Members: 


Ma. Teresa F. Nieva 
Adolfo S. Azcuna 
Ambrosio B. Padilla 
Christine Tan 
Jose D. Calderon 
Gregorio J . Tingson 
Ricardo J. Romulo 
Lino O. Brocka 
Jose N. Nolledo 


Serafin V.C. Guingona 
Lino O. Brocka 
Minda Luz M. Quesada 
Christine Tan 
Ponciano L. Bennagen 
Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon 
Cirilo A. Rigos 
Florangel Rosario Braid 
Efrain B. Trefias 








COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS 


STEERING COMMITTEE 


Florangel Rosario Braid 
Chairman 




Teodoro C. Bacani 
Vice-Chairman 





Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr. 
Chairman 



Napoleon G. Rama 
Vice-Chairman 


Members: 

Cirilo A. Rigos 
Jose N. Nolledo 
Teodulo C. Natividad 
Lugum L. Uka 
Crispino M. de Castro 
Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon 
Regalado E. Maambong 
Felicitas S. Aquino 


Members: 

Rustico F. de los Reyes, Jr 
Serafin V.C. Guingona 
Ricardo J. Romulo 
Joaquin G. Bernas 
Francisco A., Rodrigo 
Ma. Teresa F. Nieva 
Minda Luz M. Quesada 
Ahmad Domocao Alonto 


COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS AND 
transitory PROVISIONS 



Jose E. Suarez 
Chairman 



Bias F. Ople 
Vice-Chairman 


COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES 


Yusup R. Abubakar 
Chairman 



Minda Luz M. Quesada 
Vice-Chairman 


Members: 


Members: 


Rustico F. de los Reyes, Jr. 
Vicente B. Foz 
Ambrosio B. Padilla 
Regalado E. Maambong 
Crispino M. de Castro 
Rene V. Sarmiento 
Christine Tan 
Eulogio R. Lerum 
Gregorio J. Tingson 


Jose D. Calderon 
Gregorio J. Tingson 
Rustico F. de los Reyes, Jr. 
Jose N. Nolledo 
Roberto R. Concepcion 







COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE 


COMMITTEE ON SPONSORSHIP 




Serafin V.C. Guingona 
Chairman 



Edmundo G. Garcia 
Vice-Chairman 


Members: 

Jaime S.L. Tadeo 
Christian S. Monsod 
Felicitas S. Aquino 
Lino O. Brocka 
Jose E. Suarez 
Bias F. Ople 
Minda Luz M. Quesada 
Teodoro C. Bacani 
Edmundo G. Garcia 
Eulogio R. Lerum 
Christine Tan 
Wilfrido V. Villacorta 
Ponciano L. Bennagen 
Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr. 
Francisco A. Rodrigo 


Members: • 

Wilfrido V. Villacorta 
Lorenzo M. Sumulong 
Christian S. Monsod 
Rustico F. de los Reyes, Jr. 
Ma. Teresa F. Nieva 
Gregorio J. Tingson 
Felicitas S. Aquino 
Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr. 

Lino O. Brocka 
Ahmad Domocao Alonto 
Jaime S.L. Tadeo 
Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon 
Regalado E. Maambong 


COMMITTEE ON STYLE 



Francisco A. Rodrigo Efrain B. Trenas 

Chairman Vice-Chairman 

Members: 


Wilfrido V. Villacorta 
Lorenzo M. Sumulong 
Serafin V.C. Guingona 
Napoleon G. Rama 
Jose N. Nolledo 
Ambrosio B. Padilla 
Yusup R. Abubakar 
Hilario G. Davide, Jr. 
Edmundo G. Garcia 
Lugum L. Uka 
Adolfo S. Azcuna 
Rene V. Sarmiento 
Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon 


COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEARINGS 



Edmundo G. Garcia 
Chairman 


Members: 

Joquin G. Bemas 
Ma. Teresa F. Nieva 
Christian S. Monsod 
Ponciano L. Bennagen 
Serafin V.C. Guingona 
Jose N. Nolledo 
Florangel Rosario Braid 
Jose E. Suarez 
Felicitas S. Aquino 



Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon 
Vice-Chairman 


Wilfrido V. Villacorta 
Minda Luz M. Quesada 
Adolfo S. Azcuna 
Lino O. Brocka 
Jaime S.L. Tadeo 
Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr. 
Hilario G. Davide, Jr. 
Rustico F. de los Reyes, Jr. 
Decoroso R. Rosales 







EDITORIAL STAFF 


PABLO P. LIWANAG 

Chief, Editorial I Publication 

Editor in Chief 


HEIDI M. PASCUAL 
Supervising Editor 


Editors 


Avelina M. Atanacio 
Lorna P. Manarang 


Josefina T. Tamayo 


Ma. Priscila O. Palmiano 
Herminia N. Saet 


Editorial Assistants 


Ligaya M. Cinco 
Teresita L. Cordial 
Remedios S. Esquivias 


Angeles S. Hamtig 


Conchita A. Aquino 
Rhodora L. Pagayon 


Milagros M.G. Kagaoan 

Joseph Zeus A. Luna 

Ma. Lina Marciana C.T. Nario 


Indexers 

Fe B. Evangelista Preciosa I. Perez 

Typists 

Yolanda A. Bacero Lydia Abad Malig 

Alfredo D. Recella 


ROBERTO P. NAZARENO 

Technical Assistant for Operations 


FLERIDA RUTH P. ROMERO 

Secretary-General 


Table of Contents 


Plenary Sessions 

Pages 

R.C.C. No. 50 (August 7,1986) 1 

R.C.C. No. 51 (August 8,1986) 61 

R.C.C. No. 52 (August 9,1986) 115 

R.C.C. No. 53 (August 11, 1986) 153 

R.C.C. No. 54 (August 12, 1986) 203 

R.C.C. No. 55 (August 13, 1986) 239 

R.C.C. No. 56 (August 14, 1986) 293 

R.C.C. No. 57 (August 15, 1986) 331 

R.C.C. No. 58 (August 16, 1986) 369 

R.C.C. No. 59 (August 18, 1986) 411 

R.C.C. No. 60 (August 19, 1986) 469 

R.C.C. No. 61 (August 20, 1986) 519 

R.C.C. No. 62 (August 21, 1986) 563 

RC.C. No. 63 (August 22, 1986) 579 

R.C.C. No. 64 (August 23, 1986) 631 

R.C.C. No. 65 (August 25, 1986) 669 

R.C.C. No. 66 (August 26, 1986) 705 

R.C.C. No. 67 (August 27, 1986) 741 


Appendices 

Land Reform - Pillar of the Nation’s Recovery 

by Commissioner Gregorio J. Tingson 784 

Explanation of Vote of Commissioner Monsod 785 

Position Paper on Health 

by Commissioner Minda Luz M. Quesada 786 

Position Paper No. 2 

by Commissioner Ahmad Domocao Alonto 788 

Structure of Government 

by Rev. Francisco Araneta, S.J 791 

The Need for a National Community 

by Commissioner Ahmad Domocao Alonto 794 

Letter-Petition to President Marcos Re Autonomy 

Mindanao, Sulu, Palawan, Basilan and Tawi-Tawi 799 

Manifesto of the Ansar El Islam 801 

Caucus of August 15, 1986 802 

A Monopoly of Nationalism and Merit? 

by Commissioner Jose D. Calderon 

Resolution No. 20 821 





REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION OF 1986 

QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA 

Itecorb of the fltonetitutionnl ffomwitosion 

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES 

R.C.C. NO. 50 
Thursday, August 7, 1986 


OPENING OF SESSION 

At 9:46 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia 
Munoz Palma, opened the session. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is called to order. 

NATIONAL ANTHEM 

THE PRESIDENT. Eveybody will please rise to sing 
the National Anthem. 

Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem. 

THE PRESIDENT. Everybody will please remain 
standing for the Prayer to be led by the Honorable 
Florangel Rosario Braid. 

Everybody remained standing for the Prayer. 

PRAYER 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Lord of Creation: In 

supreme wisdom You have bestowed bountiful ^tts 
upon Your children. In this country of ours, 
been generous beyond measure. We marve a e 
abundant resources of nature, pleasing to the eye an 
provident to our physical needs. You have endowe 
many of Your children with talents to be dedicated to 
the service of humanity. And yet there is hunger an 
weeping in the land. The powers of darkness 
us, shaking our faith in ourselves. As we strive tor r 
and social justice, our thoughts dwell on the wor s 
the poet who said: 

To you the earth yields her fruit, and you shall not want 
if you know how to fill your hands. It is in exchanging t e 
gifts of the earth that you shall find abundance and be satis- 
fied. Yet, unless the exchange be in love and kindly justice, 
it will but lead some to greed and others to hunger. 

Help us see the need to be independent and the grace 
to admit our need for interdependence, the need for self- 


reliance and yet to be compassionate to others. 

We have completed an important milestone; we have 
listened to our people who have helped us identify the 
hues, the weave and the pattern of this tapestry — a docu- 
ment which hopefully would capture their aspirations. 

We thank You for the dedication of our fellow Commis- 
sioners, for the sacrifice of our Secretariat and support 
staff, and our fellow countrymen out there in the gallery, 
\ whose love for our country and people has motivated 
tlrem to share with us their hopes. Continue to inspire us 
to work for Your greater glory. Amen. 

ROLL CALL 

THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary-General will 
please call the roll. 


THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading: 


Abubakar . . . . 

. Present* 

Lerum 

. Present* 

Alonto 

. Present 

Maambong . . . 

. Present' 

Aquino 

. Present 

Monsod 

. Present 

Azcuna 

. Present* 

Natividad . . . . 

. . Present* 

Bacani 

. Present* 

Nieva 


Bengzon 

. Present* 

Nolledo .... 


Bennagen . . . . 

. Present 

Ople 


Bernas 

. Present 

Padilla 


Rosario Braid . . 

. Present 

Quesada .... 


Brock a 


Rama 


Calderon 


Regalado .... 

. . Present 

Castro de . . . . 


Reyes de los . 

. . Present 

Colayco 


Rigos 


Concepcion . . . 

. Present 

Rodrigo . . . . 

. . Present 

Davide 

. . Present 

Romulo . . . . 

. . Present 

Foz 


Rosales 

. . Present 

Garcia 

. . Present* 

Sarmiento . . . 

. . Present 

Gascon .... 


Suarez 

. . Present 

Guingona . . 


Sumulong . . . 

. . Present 

Jamir 


Tadeo 

. . Present 

Laurel .... 


Tan 

. . Present 


♦Appeared after the roll call 


2 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


Tingson Present Villacorta Present 

Trenas Present Villegas Present 

Uka Present 

The President is present. 

The roll call shows 33 Members responded to the call. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair declares the presence of 
a quorum. 

MR. CALDERON. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Assistant Floor Leader is 
recognized. 

MR. CALDERON. I move that we dispense with the 
reading of the Journal of the previous session. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection that we 
dispense with the reading of the Journal of the previous 
session. (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is 
approved. 


COMMUNICATIONS 

Letter from Mr. Crispin C. Maslog, President of the 
Philippine Association of the Philippine Association of 
Communication Educators, College, Laguna, recom- 
mending a broad-based ownership of mass media, 
establishment of more community-based newspapers 
and broadcast stations, Filipinization of mass media 
ownership, and prohibition of cross-ownership of mass 
media, among others. 

(Communication No. 47 1 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 


Letter from the Daughters of Mary Immaculate, Our 
Lady of Remedios Circle, Malate Catholic Church, M. H. 
del Pilar, Malate, Manila, recommending some measures 
for the establishment of a moral regeneration of values 
throughout the country. 

(Communication No. 472 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Social Justice. 


To the Committee on General Provisions. 


APPROVAL OF JOURNAL 

MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that we 
approve the Journal of the previous session. 


the PRESIDENT. Is there any objection that we 
pprwe the Journal of the previous session? (Silence) 

6 ^ hears none; the motion is approved. 


MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I 
proceed to the Reference of Business. 


move that we 


^here any objection? (Silence) 
e Chair hears none; the motion is approved. 

The Secretary-General will read the Reference of 
Dusmess. 


reference OF BUSINESS 

following Proposed 

Pre<tident Communications, the 

President making the corresponding references: 


PROPOSED RESOLUTION ON FIRST READING 
Proposed Resolution No. 536, entitled: 

TWENTY-EIGHT 

THE RULES OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL rOMMT<;«;] 
BY ALLOWING RECONSIDERATION OF CONSTI 
TIONAL PROPOSALS EMBODIED IN THE fIJ 
DRAFT OF THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE ITS 
APPROVAL. 


Introduced by Hon. Sarmiento. 
To the Steering Committee. 


Letter from Mr. Jaime Hermida Ching, a contract 
worker in Dammam, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, con- 
taining his suggestions in the framing of the new Consti- 
tution. 

(Communication No. 473 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Steering Committee. 

Letter jointly signed by Messrs. Horacio M. Montefrio, 
Cesar P. Macasero, Arturo P. Casuga, and Pedro L. 
Esteban, requesting inclusion in the Article on 
Education, Science, Technology, Sports, Arts and 
Culture of the Constitution the following proposed 
provision: “THE STATE, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH 
THE INDUSTRIAL AND BUSINESS SECTORS, 
SHALL ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN AND SUPPORT AN 
INTEGRATED AND COORDINATED SYSTEM OF 
TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND 
TRAINING FROM THE SECONDARY TO TERTIARY 
LEVELS FOR MORE EFFECTIVE HUMAN RE- 
SOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZATION.” 

(Communication No. 474 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Human Resources. 

Letter from Mr. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., Deputy 
Executive Secretary, Office of the President, Mala- 
canang, transmitting the letter of Sgt. Jovenal B. 
Giangan of PAF, Mactan Air Base, Lapulapu City, seek- 
ing the abolition of the political party system. 

(Communication No. 475 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and 
Agencies. 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


3 


Letter from Mr. Rolando Cimafranca of Chugum cor. 
Abanao Street, Baguio City, seeking a definite provision 
in the Constitution protecting the right to life of the 
unborn from the moment of conception. 

(Communication No. 476 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and 
Declaration of Principles. 

Letter from Mr. Justino E. Honculada of 3 1 1 D. Alviola 
Village, Butuan City, expressing apprehension over the 
approval of a constitutional provision allowing illiterates 
to vote. 

(Communication No. 477 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, 
Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights. 

Letter from Mr. Victor Gruta of Biriran, Juban, Sor- 
sogon, submitting an unnumbered resolution of the 
Biriran Irrigators’ Service Association, requesting 
exemption of small landowners from the imple- 
mentation of the land reform program. 

(Communication No. 478 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Social Justice. 

Letter from Mr. Hilario L. de Pedro III, O.I.C. of Koro- 
nadal, South Cotabato by the municipal government of 
Koronadal, favoring, among others, the retention of 
U.S. military bases, a bicameral legislature, election of 
Congressmen by district, presidential type of govern- 
ment, and the abolition of the death penalty. 

(Communication No. 479 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Steering Committee. 

Communication signed by Mr. Omar Mendoza of the 
UP Science Research Foundation and three thousand 
nine hundred thirty-five others with their respective 
addresses, seeking the inclusion in the Constitution of 
a provision obliging the State to protect the life of the 
unborn from the moment of conception. 

(Communication No. 480 - Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and 
Declaration of Principles. 

Communication from Mr. Haji Jameel Ramli A. Noor of 
38 Pangarungan Village, Marawi City, submitting for 
consideration by the Constitutional Commission a 
manuscript entitled; “Islamic Autonomous Govern- 
ment or Federal State for the Muslims: Tlie Only 
Acceptable Formula is Its Incorporation in the New 
Constitution to Formally and Finally Integrate the 
Muslims into the Philippine Body Politic.” 


(Communication No. 481 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Local Governments. 

Letter from Mr. Cesar V. Canchela, transmitting the 
position paper of the United Architects of the Philip- 
pines, CCP, Roxas Boulevard, Metro Manila, recom- 
mending, among others, for inclusion in the Constitu- 
tion the utilization of the services of Filipino profes- 
sionals and consultants on government projects funded 
by the Philippine government and from foreign loans 
and .grants. 

(Communication No. 482 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions 
and Agencies. 

Letter from Mr. Santiago B. Galang of 14 7th Avenue, 
Cubao, Quezon City, expressmg apprehension over the 
influx of the Chinese and their monopoly of businesses 
in the Philippines. 

(Communication No. 483 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on the National Economy and 
Patrimony. 

Letter from Mr. Isaias P. Costelo of 285 Picnic Ground, 
Tugbungan, Zamboanga City, proposing, among others, 
a presidential type of government with a bicameral 
legislature and the creation of a Commission on Ap- 
pointments. 

(Communication No. 484 - Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Steering Committee. 

Communication from Ms. Edna Desalapo of 2258 Int. 

1 1-53 Leveriza, Malate, Manila and one hundred twenty 
others from Sta. Ana, Pandacan, Leveriza and San 
Andres Bukid, Manila, suggesting provisions on social 
justice, housing, education, labor, family and women’s 
rights, among others. 

(Communication No. 485 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Social Justice. 

Letter from Mr. Erlindo P. Llanera of Villa Maria Sub- 
division, Travesia, Guinobatan, Albay, suggesting a 
preamble couched in the language of God-loving citizens 
of a tree nation, a tour-year presidential term and 
nonimmunity from suit of the President. 

(Communication No. 486 - Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on the Executive. 


4 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


Communication from Ms. Trifona P. Macapanas for the 
Ramis Barangay High School Students Organization, 
Hinabangan, Samar, submitting resolutions proposing 
the abolition of the National College Entrance Exam- 
ination and allowing colleges and universities to 
administer entrance examinations; and the adoption 
of Tagalog as the medium of instruction. 

(Communication No. 487 - Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Human Resources. 

Letter from Ms. Fe Samaniego for the National Spiritual 
Assembly of the Baha’is of the Philippines, Inc., 1070 
A. Roxas, Singalong, Manila, submitting proposals for 
the State to inculcate in the individual the conviction 
and consciousness of the essential unity of the human 
race as the only viable standard for social and economic 
justice, and for the State to provide free elementary 
and high school education in public schools wherein 
comparative religion shall be taught. 

(Communication No. 488 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Human Resources. 


CONSIDERATION OF 
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 534 
(Article on Social Justice) 

Continuation 

PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS 

MR. RAMA. I move that we take up the unfinished 
consideration of the Article on Social Justice wliich is 
now in the period of amendments. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection‘s (Silence) 
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. 

The honorable Chairman and members of tlie Com- 
mittee on Social Justice are requested to please occupy 
the front table in order that we may proceed with the 
continuation of the period of amendments. 

y 

SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended. 

It was 10:02 a.m. 

RESUMPTION OF SESSION 


Utter from Messrs. Lito Urgino and Frank Padilla for 
Families for Justice and Peace, 300 P. Guevarra, San 
Juan, Metro Manila, submitting 5,830 signatures in 
^pport of Resolution No. 272, introduced by the 
Honorable Commissioners Nieva, Bacani, Munoz Palma, 
gos, ascon, and Guingona, to incorporate in the 
ons itution a separate article on the protection and 
promotion of the rights of the family ; and recommend- 
ing e approval of a provision which mandates the 
protection of the hfe of the mother and the unborn 
human life from the moment of conception. 

~ Constitutional Commission 

of 1986) 


To the (Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and 

Declaration of Principles. 


Qjmmunicatmn from Ms. Maribel C. Purisima of th 

Ministry of Trade and Industry and one thousand fi\ 

• twelve other petitioners, seeking to includ 

^ P^^^ision obUging the State t 

IZtV tL moment c 

conception. 

(Communication No. 490 - Constitutionai Coramissic 


MR. RAMA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized. 


At 10:08 a.m., the session was resumed. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, while the text of the 
amendment of Commissioner Colayco to Section 3 is 
still being xeroxed, I move that we proceed to Section 
5 since there are no proponents of amendments for 
Section 4. 

May I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Jamir is recog- 
nized. 

MR. JAMIR. Madam President, my amendment is 
in connection with the second sentence of Section 5 
which reads; “To this end, the State shall encourage 
. . .” After the word “shall,” put a comma (,) and add 
the words BY LAW then put a comma (,). So with my 
amendment, the sentence will now read: “To this end, 
the State shall, BY LAW, encourage and undertake the 
just distribution . . .” 

THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say? 

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, may I call the 
attention of Commissioner Jamir to the clause “as 
Congress may prescribe.” Does the Commissioner not 
feel that the clause adequately satisfies the require- 
ment regarding the insertion of his amendment between 
the words “the State” and “shall”? The clause “as 
Congress may prescribe” is descriptive or restrictive 
of the previous phrase. 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


5 


MR. JAMIR. I believe so, Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Suarez refer 
to the clause “and other conditions as Congress may 
prescribe” which would not necessitate the insertion 
of the words “BY LAW” after “the State shall”? 

MR. SUAREZ. That is right. Madam President. 

We suggest that there must be a comma (,) before the 
word “as.” 

MR. JAMIR. Madam President, I am transposing my 
amendment to the first sentence instead. So after the 
word “shall,” it will read: “The State shall, BY LAW, 
undertake a genuine agrarian ...” 

MR. SUAREZ. I think there is merit in the trans- 
position. 

MR. JAMIR. Thank you. 

MS. NIEVA. Madam President, we would like to call 
attention to certain slight corrections. We have already 
agreed to remove “genuine” as a qualifying word for 
agrarian reform on the first line. Tile Committee had 
already accepted this. 

MR. JAMIR. Thank you. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is Commissioner Jamir satisfied? 

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, the whole sentence 
would now read. The State shall, BY LAW, undertake 
an agrarian reform program ...” 

THE PRESIDENT. Can we now proceed to vote? 

MR. RAMA. Yes, Madam President, because the 
amendment has been accepted by the Committee. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the 
amendment proposed on the first line of the draft of 
the committee report? (Silence) The Chair hears none; 
the amendment is approved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commis- 
sioner Davide be recognized to amend Section 5. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you, Madam President. 

The amendment is very simple. On the third line of 
Section 5, between the words “farmworkers” and “to,” 
I propose to insert a comma (,) after “farmworkers” 
followed by the phrase ESPECIALLY THE LANDLESS 
then put a comma (,) after it. And on the fourth line 
after “till,” put a comma (,) so it will read: “and 
regular farmworkers, ESPECIALLY THE LANDLESS, 


to own directly or collectively the lands they till, OR, 
in the case of other . . .” 

MR. TADEO. Commissioner Davide, maaari bang 
pakiliwanag lamang kung ano ang ibig sabiliin ng “land- 
less”? 

MR. DAVIDE. The term “landless” refers to the 
regular farm workers or the farmers who do not own 
lands of their own. So, priority must be given to them, 
because the farmers and regular farm workers men- 
tioned here may or may not have lands of their own, 
and I want priority to be given to the landless of these 
farmers and regular farm workers. 

MR. TADEO. Marahil mas magaling kung ipaliliwa- 
nag natin ito nang mabuti. Ang programa nitong naka- 
raan sa ilalim ni Ginoong Marcos ay tinawag na “land 
for the tillers.” Ngunit noong panahon ni Presidente 
Magsaysay, tinawag naman itong “land for the landless.” 
Ang mga farmers at regular farm workers ay parehong 
landless. 

MR. DAVIDE. No, not necessarily. In the course 
of my interpellation, the Gentleman admitted that if 
one has a small land but works on the land of ano- 
ther during the off-season, he may be entitled to get 
that particular land of another, in addition to his own. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, that phrase may 
not be in the contemplation of the Committee because 
it means, as Commissioner Davide has said, that some- 
body who already has land and may be helping his 
neighbor by being a hired manager of the adjoining 
lot, would still be entitled to acquire that adjoining lot 
under the agrarian reform program. To include the land- 
less, meaning even those who already have land, to be 
beneficiaries under the agrarian reform program is not 
the intent of the Committee. 

MR. DAVIDE. No, that was not the answer of Com- 
missioner Tadeo to my question before. 

MR. TADEO. Commissioner Monsod, palagay ko 
ay mayroong katuwiran si Commissioner Davide. Ang 
tinutukoy niya ay ang mga farmers and regular farm 
workers na walang sariling pag-aari at nagsasaka pa sa 
iba. 

MR. DAVIDE. That is correct. 

MR. TADEO. Ang binibigyan ng priority ay iyong 
landless farmers and regular farm workers na walang 
sariling lupang sinasaka at nakikisaka pa sa iba. 

MR. DAVIDE. Yes, I think that should really be 
the thrust of land reform. 

MR. MONSOD. Yes, but there is a division in the 
Committee. When we say “especially the landless,” 


6 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


that suggests that even those who already have land 
would still be beneficiaries. 

MR. DAVIDE. Let us just clarify this for the record. 
What really is the objective of land reform? Is it to give 
priority to the landless and should not be applied to 
farm workers and farmers who already have lands of 
their own? 

MR. TADEO. I agree with Commissioner Davide. 

MR. DAVIDE. So, I think the Commission will have 
to decide on this particular issue — the scope of agrarian 
reform. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President, may I offer 
an amendment to the amendment of' Commissioner 
Davide? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de los Reyes is 
recognized. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Will Commissioner Davide 
accept an amendment by placing the word “LAND- 
LESS” between “regular” and “farmworkers” so that 
it will read: “on the basic right of farmers and regular 
LANDLESS farmworkers. . .” 

MR. DAVIDE. The amendment will not remedy the 
apparent conflict in the interpretation, because under 
that particular interpretation, it would apply only to 
regular landless farm workers but not to farmers with- 
out lands of their own. So, I really would seek a definite 
stand of the Committee. 

THE PRESIDENT. In other words. Commissioner 
Davide does not accept the proposed amendment? 

MR. DAVIDE. No, because it will remedy only 
partly, not the entire concept of land reform. 

SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended. 

It was 10:20 a.m. 

resumption of session 

At 10:21 a.m., the session was resumed. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod will please 
proceed. 

MR. MONSOD. We have arrived at a formulation 
here, so instead of saying “ESPECIALLY THE LAND- 
LESS,” we will say WHO ARE LANDLESS. 


MR. DAVIDE. The amendment will be placed after 
“farmworkers,” so instead of “ESPECIALLY THE 
LANDLESS,” it should be “WHO ARE LANDLESS”? 

MR. MONSOD. Yes. 

MR. DAVIDE. So, it will now read; “The State shall 
by law undertake an agrarian reform program founded 
on the basic right of farmers and regular farmworkers 
WHO ARE LANDLESS to own directly or collective- 
ly . . .” 

MR. MONSOD. Yes. 

MR. DAVIDE. I agree. Madam President, and there 
should be a comma (,) after “till” on the fourth line. 

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, just a question 
for clarification. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog- 
nized. 

MR. RODRIGO. Does the phrase “WHO ARE LAND- 
LESS” modify both farmers and regular farm workers? 

MR. MONSOD. Yes. 

MR. RODRIGO. Thank you. 

MR. MONSOD. Maybe between the words “LAND- 
LESS” and “to,” we should put a comma (,) so that 
it refers to “farmworkers WHO ARE LANDLESS, ...” 

MR. DAVIDE. Yes. 

THE PRESIDENT. How is that now? Will Commis- 
sioner Monsod please repeat. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the first part of 
Section 5 will now read: “The State shall by law under- 
take an agrarian reform program founded on the basic 
right of farmers and regular farmworkers, WHO ARE 
LANDLESS, to own directly. . .” 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any other proposed 
amendment on this first sentence so that we can vote 
on this? 

Commissioner Bacani is recognized. 

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, for the sake of 
our being able to explain it adequately to the people 
to whom we shall be explaining this, may I know how 
we justify the basic right of farmers and regular farm 
workers who are landless to own directly or collectively 
the land they till? I do not see any difficulty in saying 
that the farmers and farm workers have a right to some 
property because that is needed for dignified living. 
That they should have a basic right precisely to the 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


7 


land they till is, however, something I do not see very 
clearly and I would have to explain that to the people. 

1 see this distribution and redistribution as an 
exigency of the common good and, hence, instead of 
affirming that this is founded on the basic right of 
farmers and farm workers who are landless to own the 
land they till, I would rather say that it is “because 
the common good so requires it.” That would be an 
amendment 1 would like to introduce in case I do not 
get a satisfactory explanation. 

In other words, I am not against their owning directly 
or collectively the land they till. I think that is an 
imperative; I think that is necessary. What I do not see 
so clearly is that that action of the government should 
be premised on the basic right of the farmers or the 
farm workers who are landless to own precisely the 
land they till. 

MS. NIEVA. So, would the Bishop suggest that the 
phrase “founded on tlie basic right of farmers” be 
replaced by another phrase? 

BISHOP BACANI. Yes, and instead I suggest' “ON 
ACCOUNT OF THE EXIGENCY OF THE COMMON 
GOOD, the State shall undertake an agrarian reform 
program so that farmers and regular farmworkers 
WHO ARE LANDLESS, to own directly or collectively 
the land they till.” 

MR. TADEO. Commissioner Bacani, dati itong 
“primacy,” ngunit pumayag na rin kami sa inyong 
mungkahi sa isang pagpupulong ng Committee na gawin 
natin itong “basic right.” 

BISHOP BACANI. Hindi po ako ang nagmungkahi 
noon. Present ako, pero hindi ako ang nagmungkahi 
noon. Si Commissioner Monsod yata ang nagmungkahi 
noon. 

MR. TADEO. This is what “basic right” means - 
it is a principle in agrarian reform whereby those who 
actually till the land have the supremacy to own the 
same in a manner that is expeditious and/or in common 
with others. Ang mismong nagtatrabaho sa bukid, ang 
magsasaka, ay mayroong pangunahing karapatan or first 
opportunity na magmay-ari at unang dapat makinabang 
sa bunga ng kanUang pagod at pawis. Ito po kasi ang 
pangunahing principle at objective ng agrarian reform. 

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, I do not deny 
that that is the principle. What I would like to know 
is how we will Justify that principle since it is not self- 
evident? That is what I am trying to say. It is not a 
self-evident principle that they should own precisely 
the land they till. Tliat they should have a primacy 
of right to the fruits is evident to me. That they should 
have also a basic right to some property is evident to 
me. But that they should have a basic right precisely 
to this land that they till is not as evident to me, and 


that is why I am not rejecting it as yet. I am asking for 
an explanation of that not self-evident principle. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Aquino is recog- 
nized. 

MS. AQUINO. I would yield to Commissioner 
Monsod, Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog- 
nized. 

MR. MON SOD. Madam President, let me just give 
an example and see whether that concretizes what the 
Commissioner is talking about. 

Let us say that Juan is tilling the land of Jose. In 
the case of Jose, he may be one of those small land- 
owners allowed to keep their land under the retention 
limits as Commissioner de los Reyes said today. Now, 
Juan still has a right to own land because he is a tiller 
and he is landless and, perhaps, in such an instance, he 
would have a priority to public land that can be alien- 
ated. Is that what the Commissioner means? 

BISHOP BACANI. Yes. In other words, that is it. 
When we say that farmers have the basic right to own 
the land they till, it means that is true in each and every 
circumstance without any exception. So that when 
they till a certain land and they fall within this category, 
then they can claim the right to own that land and there 
is no possibility of denying that claim whatsoever. 

MR. MONSOD. This is just a trial formulation to see 
if it reflects the Bishop’s thinking. Suppose we amend 
the first part of this paragraph to read; “The State shall 
by law undertake an agrarian reform program founded 
on the basic right of tillers and regular farmworkers, 
who are landless, to own land directly or collectively or, 
in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share 
of the fruits thereof.” 

BISHOP BACANI. It does not seem to meet what I 
am trying to say. Can we really, upon having put this 
in the Constitution, explain this? I think this is one of 
the instances in the Constitution where we affirm 
something theoretical. 

MR. MONSOD. But that formulation took out pre- 
cisely the phrase “the lands they till” but recognizes 
that a tiller who is landless has a right to own land. 
I am only trying to see if this is what the Bishop has 
in mind, but this is certainly not the position of the 
Committee. 

BISHOP BACANI. Yes, that would be what I mean 
when I say that they are entitled to some land, and 
they are entitled even principally to the fruits of that 
land but not necessarily entitled to own the land they 
till. 


8 


THURSDAY, AUC^UST 7, 1986 


MR. MONSOD. Yes, now we understand the point 
of the Commissioner, and maybe that is something for 
the Committee as a whole to consider. 

BISHOP BACANI. So, may I propose that as an 
amendment — the Commissioner’s own formulation 
which is a happy one for me and which,I think, meets 
the exigencies of land reform. 

THE PRESIDENT. I think our difficulty is with the 
interpretation of Commissioner Bacani that the phrase 
“basic right” means an unquaUfied and plenary right 
to claim. 

BISHOP BACANI. Yes. In other words, when we 
speak of a basic right, then we have a basic right to 
property or a basic right to life. 

MS. AQUINO. Would it satisfy the Commissioner 
if we find an alternative to the phrase “basic right” 
or to the word “right,” if only to approximate that 
kind of a difficulty and address the problem of that 
interpretation? 

BISHOP BACANI. Yes. I would argue for something 
like “a great appropriateness.” After “appropriateness” 

I do not know how to word it. There is really a great 
appropriateness for them to own the land they till. Or 
maybe we can even speak of an imperative. That is 
why on account of the common good there is that 
imperative. I do not argue against the fact that they 
must own land. 

MR. MONSOD. In other words, the Commissioner 
does not want a strict absolute correspondence between 
the land that is being actually tilled and the right to 
own by a tiller. 

BISHOP BACANI. Yes, but they ought to have the 
right to own some land and the government must 
guarantee that to them. 

MR. BE.NGZON. In other words, what the Com- 
missioner is saying is that it does not automatically 
mean that they have that basic right to own the land 
that they specifically till. 

BISHOP BACANI. Yes, that is it; not in all cases. 
Ihe way it is fomiulated now does not seem to admit 
of any exception, if it is a basic right. 

MR. BENGZON. We understand that now. Would 
the Commissioner like to propose that amendment so 
that the Committee can react to it? 

BISHOP BACANI. Yes. May I propose the formula- 
tion of Commissioner Monsod which, 1 think, expresses 
it. 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villegas desires 
to make some comments on this. 

MR. VILLEGAS. Could I contribute some insights 
into the principle behind agrarian reform? In the 1973 
Constitution, Article XIV, Section 1 3 states: 

The Batasang Pambansa may authorize, upon payment 
of just compensation, the expropriation of private land to 
be subdivided into small lots and conveyed at cost to 
deserving citizens. 

If we will remember, this really made constitutional 
history because it went beyond the principle of eminent 
domain - that the State can expropriate lands in small 
lots for distribution to deserving citizens. But the 
principle behind this had nothing to do with the basic 
right of tillers to own the land they till. This was pre- 
mised on precisely the exigencies of the common 
good. The social function of property which requires 
that in specific circumstances when political and social 
stability is threatened, the government or the State lias, 
with just compensation, the right to expropriate lands. 

I completely share the fears of Commissioner Bacani 
about stating a basic right, and I would be more com- 
fortable if another reason were cited. I am very much in 
favor of giving lands to small farmers. I think that is a 
requirement of political, social and economic stability. 
But I think we are treading on dangerous grounds in 
articulating a certain basic right. Let us also keep in 
mind that there are certain countries like Taiwan which 
in 20 years or so, in one generation, has literally gone 
the full circle and is now implementing an agrarian 
reform program which is exactly the opposite — they 
are now trying to consolidate their small farms because 
the common good dictates that they should not have 
small farms anymore. 

A study of Taiwan in 1986 will show us their land 
reform program which is completely the opposite of 
what they implemented in the 1950s because they 
realized that the common good requires that they do 
not grow sugar in one-hectare properties, but should 
start to grow more and more in large-scale farming. 
We cannot constitutionalize certain provisions which 
are requirements of the common good today, but which 
20 years from now may be completely the opposite. 

That is why I am very much in favor of this provision 
making sure that today, in 1 986, the millions of landless 
farmers should have land that they can till which they 
can call their own, but let us be very careful about 
constitutionalizing that kind of an exigency of the 
common good today which may not be an exigency of 
the common good in the year 2000. 

MS. NIEVA. Is Commissioner Villegas proposing an 
amendment? 

MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, I propose an expression like 
“because of the requirements of the common good.” 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


9 


MR. TADEO. Madam President, gusto ko lang pong 
magpaliwanag. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tadeo is recog- 
nized. 


RESUMPTION OF SESSION 
At 11:11 a.m., the session was resumed. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed. 


MR. TADEO. Kung napapansin ninyo, nakalagay dito 
ang pariralang: “to own directly or collectively,” at 
sinasabi ninyong nagsasaad ang “collectively” ng 
common good. Ngunit mayroon pang mga lupain — at 
batay iyan sa uri ng pananim, gaya ng mais at bigas — na 
kinakailangang ariin mo tulad ng tricycle upang maalaga- 
an mong maigi. Ngunit actually liindi tayo titigil doon. 
Alam naman nating ang hiwa-hiwalay at pira-pirasong 
pagsasaka ay hindi produktibong pagsasaka. Kaya 
tutungo rin tayo roon sa yugto ng cooperative farming 
o collective farming at makakamtan din natin ang 
common good. Actually, hindi pa kayang tanggapin ng 
magbubukid sa kasalukuyan ang sama-samang pagma- 
may-ari, iyong sinasabi nating common good. For 
change to endure, the idea of the cooperative farm must 
come from within, not merely imposed on them. 

MR. VILLEGAS. Madam President. 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villegas is recog- 
nized. 


MR. VILLEGAS. The common good and collective 
farming are not synonymous, so there is no corre- 
spondence between the use of the common good and 
the advocacy for collective farming. The common good 
is a high principle which 1 suggest as an alternative to 
the phrase “a basic right.” And definitely, as I said, I do 
not think we have reasons to quarrel over the final 
result. The linal result should be that small farmers 
today able to own their one-hectare, two-hectare, 
three-hectare lots planted to corn, coconut, cacao and 
other types of crops. So, there is no question about 
that. 


MR. BENGZON. Would Commissioner Villegas agree 
to a fonnulation being made by Commissioner Monsod 
which will coordinate and correlate with the amend- 
ment y Comm.issioner Bacani which states 

that; OF THE COMMON GOOD 

the STATE SHALL BY LAW UNDERTAKE AGRA- 
RIAN REFORM PROGRAM FOUNDED ON THE 

basic right of farmers and regular 
farmworkers, who are TILLERS AND LAND- 
LESS, TO OWN DIRECTLY OR COLLECTIVELY. . .” 

In other words, we inject the thought of the Com- 
missionei to the amendment of Commissioner Bacani. 


MR. RAMA. Madam President, the proponents have 
reached a meeting of minds, so may I call on Com- 
missioner Bacani to present the basic amendment. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog- 
nized. 

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, after I present 
my amendment, the Committee itself will explain the 
meaning of a very important word which we have agreed 
upon to make it official. 

The amendment by deletion simply goes this way: 
“The State shall BY LAW undertake AN agrarian reform 
program founded on the right of farmers and regular 
faniiworkers, WHO ARE LANDLESS, to own directly 
or collectively the lands they till . . .” 

Madam President, a very vital explanation is on the 
word “right” and the elimination of the word “basic.” 

I would like that to come from the Committee itself 
since we already agreed on this. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair wishes to be clarified 
with regard to the proposed amendment of Commis- 
sioner Bacani. In other words, it is still the same, except 
for the elimination of the word “basic.” 

BISHOP BACANI. The elimination of the word 
“basic” has left the word “right” being understood in a 
looser sense than one might first construe upon seeing 
it. And that is why I am asking the Committee to give 
that explanation. 

THE PRESIDENT. And is the Commissioner’s pro- 
posed amendment different now from the original 
version that was given to us by Commissioner Monsod? 
We just want to clarify that. 

BISHOP BACANI. Yes, Madam President, but the 
sense approximates that. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, that formulation 
does not really mean an absolute correspondence be- 
cause that “right” is also subject to the second sentence 
which says, “subject to such priorities, retention limits 
and other conditions as Congress may prescribe.” How- 
ever, the Committee feels that it is important to retain 
the words “the lands they till” because really in 
practice that would be the preferential route as far as 
identification of the land is concerned. 


SUSPENSION OF SESSION 


MS. AQUINO. Madam President. 


the PRESIDENT. The session is suspended. JHE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Aquino is recog- 

It was 10:42 a.m. nized. 


10 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


MS. AQUINO. The deletion of the term “basic” is 
best understood in the context of the proposal of 
Commissioners Romulo and de los Reyes, which will be 
an insertion of a sentence after the word “compensa- 
tion.” However, preliminarily, it is the Committee’s 
position that the deletion of the term “basic” and the 
retention of the word “right” means that the polar 
star - when we expound the principle of land reform— 
is that the farmer has a right to the land he tills, but this 
is not an immutable right. In other words, his claim of 
ownership does not automatically pertain or correspond 
to the same land that he is actually and physically till- 
ing. It would yield to the limitations and adjustments 
provided for in the second sentence of the first para- 
graph, specifically the “retention limits” and the 
amendments of Commissioners Romulo and de los 
Reyes, which the Committee is accepting. 

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, I think that is 
the official sense and it translates the meaning that was 
sought for in the amendment before, and that is why 
that is presented in this form now. 

THE PRESIDENT. What does Commissioner Villegas 
say? 


MR. TINGSON. I should like very much to support 
that amendment because I feel that that is very neces- 
sary in order for the small landowners of our country 
to feel that they are neither ignored nor their basic 
rights totally neglected. I understand. Madam President, 
that in one of the Supreme Court decisions, “small 
landowners” made references to the hardworking and 
frugal people who in a lifetime of sacrifice gathered 
their pitiful little savings and purchased small farms to 
supplement the inadequate pensions from the Govern- 
ment Service Insurance System or the Social Security 
System. So I would like to go on record that 1 am in 
favor of that amendment and I appreciate very much 
the privilege of being part of that amendment. 

MR. REGALADO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Regalado is recog- 
nized. 

MR. REGALADO. Will Commissioner de los Reyes 
accept an amendment to the amendment by eliminat- 
ing the word “FAMILY” - just say “SMALL LAND- 
OWNERS,” not necessarily “SMALL FAMILY LAND- 
OWNERS.” 


MR. VILLEGAS. I accept the formulation. Madam 
President. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may we just pouit 
out two things here: In the first sentence, the ComS 
tee has already accepted the term “BY LAW” which was 
introduced by Commissioner Jamir; in the second 
sentence, we have formulated the phrase “as Congress 
may prescribe.” This sentence is really a long sentence 
and even includes the consideration of whatever law 
Congress shall prescribe. 

THE PRESIDENT. So, this is now accepted by the 
Committee. 

♦u AQUINO. Madam President, may we request 
a ommissioner de los Reyes be recognized to 
propose an amendment. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de los Reyes is 
recognized. 

heinf H amendment jointly 

being submitted by Commissioners Romulo, Monsod 

and Tingson. It is an additional sentence after the word 

^ fallows: THE 

STATE SHALL RESPECT THE RICHtq nc cAyrAi t 

FAMILY LANDOWNERS IN THE DETERMNAxtoN 

OF THE RETENTION LIMITS. i lUN 


MR. TINGSON. Madam President. 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tingson is recog- 
nised. 


MR. DE LOS REYES. Inasmuch as the Committee 
has already stated in advance that it has accepted my 
amendment, I would like to throw it to the Committee, 
although personally I have no objection to the elimina- 
tion of the word “FAMILY.” 

THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say to 
the proposed amendment of Commissioner Regalado? 

MS. AQUINO. The Chairperson initially manifested 
the Committee’s acceptance of the amendment to the 
amendment; however, we wish to clarify that our refer- 
ence to small landowners does not necessarily mean that 
they should be owner-cultivators, according to the 
definition that we have adopted. In other words, small 
landowners here who are entitled to State protection do 
not necessarily refer only to owner-cultivators. How- 
ever, there is one basic principle which should be 
respected and which we would accommodate — that the 
tenancy relationship be abolished. This is the basic 
principle of all land reform codes presently in effect. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. It is in that spirit that this 
amendment is being offered. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President, may Commis- 
sioner de los Reyes answer just one question? 

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed. 

MR. DE CASTRO. What does the Commissioner 
mean by “small landowners”? How big is the land 
owned? 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


11 


MR. DE LOS REYES. That will be as determined by 
law, although at present the retention limit, I under- 
stand, is seven hectares. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog- 
nized. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, this section would 
now include or extend its coverage to all agricultural 
lands. So, we feel that Congress will have a better op- 
portunity to define not only limits for land but for 
specific types of land or crops, even perhaps suitable to 
different areas, because there are different conditions 
for different crops in different areas. We do not want 
to preempt Congress on this, although the intent is quite 
clear in the provision where we are referring to “small,” 
and it is up to Congress to define “small” in specific 
instances. 

MR. TINGSON. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tingson is recog- 
nized. 

MR. TINGSON. I do understand that there is a case 
entitled Nilo v.s. Court of Appeals, whereby the case 
states that “small landowners” are referred to as having 
24 hectares or less. Is that true to coconut? 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the Committee 
would just like to clarify that there may be cases defin- 
ing “small,” but since the coverage of this Article is 
wider than it was before, there would be need for 
additional congressional clarification of that point. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog- 
nized. 

MR. BENNAGEN. The question of defining “small” 
in terms of absolute figures is a tricky business because 
it depends on the number of variables, like soil, climate, 
and all that. In any case, I think the provision, as for- 
mulated, provides us some criteria, and these are subject 
to or shall take into account ecological, developmental 
or equity considerations. We cannot be definite as to 
sizes, with respect to rice, corn or whatever crops, be- 
cause these are variable, and this is proven by researches 
worldwide. 

Thank you. Madam President. 

MR. JAMIR. Parliamentary inquiry. Madam Pres- 
ident. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner J amir is recognized. 


MR. JAMIR. May I know from the Committee the 
exact meaning of the words “agricultural lands.” I ask 
this question because our Supreme Court considers even 
residential lands as part of the agricultural lands. Even 
our 1973 Constitution divides lands into agricultural, 
mineral, and forest lands. So, I would like an authorita- 
tive definition from the Committee, if that is possible. 

MR. TADEO. Ayon sa aklat ni Commissioner Nolledo, 
ang Principles of Agrarian Reforms, Cooperatives and 
Taxation, ang definition ng agricultural land sa ilalim ng 
Section 166, RA 3844, ay land devoted to any growth 
including, but not limited to, crop lands, saltbeds, fish- 
ponds, idle land and abandoned land. 

MR. JAMIR. So, the provision of RA 3844 cited by 
the Gentleman is a definition of agricultural lands by 
the Committee. 

Thank you. 

MR. PADILLA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Padilla is recog- 
nized. 

MR. PADILLA. I heard from Commissioner Aquino 
that there is absolute prohibition or abolition of the 
system of tenancy. I know that under RA 3844, some 
lands devoted to rice and com were subject to land 
reform, if there is a tenancy relation but not when there 
are farm laborers. In my opinion. Madam President, the 
position of a tenant, who since the time of President 
Quezon was given 70 percent of the produce of rice 
land, is better or preferable to a farm laborer who only 
receives a minimum wage. The tenant who receives 70 
percent of the produce is, in effect, an industrial partner 
who contributes his labor and yet receives the greater 
portion of the harvest; whereas a farm laborer does not 
share in the productive income of the farm but is only 
entitled to a minimum wage. 

I cannot understand why under RA 3844, there was 
preference for the farm laborer and discrimination 
against tenancy. In my opinion, the status of a tenant 
as an industrial partner is higher and better than a mere 
farm laborer who does not share in the profits of the 
farm but is only paid a minimum wage. So, I am sur- 
prised why there should be a statement that the land 
reform is based on absolute abolition of the tenancy 
relation in preference for some farms with farm 
laborers. Madam President, that was the loophole in the 
correct implementation of the land reform program. 
There were certain landowners whp were clever enough 
to make it appear that their tenants who are their 
industrial partners of their farm workers in the produc- 
tion of rice and corn were only farm laborers, and, 
therefore, no longer subject to land reform: whereas 
those who acknowledge the true fact that they had 
tenants as their industrial partners were subject to land 
reform. 


12 


THURSDAY. AUGUST 7, 1986 


So, I would like the Committee to respond whether 
the real intention is to abolish absolutely the tenancy 
relation because it is a social evil, because in my 
opinion, a tenant has a better and a higher relation than 
that of a mere farm laborer. 


BISHOP BACANI. Yes, I believe that is what the 
Committee and I mean. 

MR. RODRIGO. Regular farm workers, who are land- 
less, are regular workers in somebody else’s farm? 


MR. MONSOD. Madam President, we agree that there 
may be instances of share tenancy where the tenant 
might actually receive more than if he were a mere 
employee. However, the system of tenancy is looked 
upon as the source of many evils, although not neces- 
sarily evil per se. How we want to solve the situation is 
the phrase in the first sentence where we talk about 
farm workers who have a right to receive a just share of 
the fruits thereof. We look at this as a solution to the 
question on whether they really end up in a worse 
situation by changing the system from tenancy relation 
to an employee-relation because then the concept of an 
industrial employee will come in when that employee 
receives a just share of the fruits thereof. If we notice, 
this is a parallel clause in the subsection on Labor 

because m a way there is a parallel situation in those 
two cases. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there is a pending 
^endment which has been accepted by the Commit- 
Tu- proponent is insisting that it be voted on. 

his IS the amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes. 


BISHOP BACANI. Yes, that is also the meaning. 

MR. RODRIGO. Let us say I own a fann, but instead 
of hiring regular farm workers, I hire planters during the 
planting season. Then I hire harvesters during the 
harvest season and I hire another group of threshers. 
These are not regular farm workers, are they? 

BISHOP BACANI. They do not fall under the term 
“regular farm workers.” 

MR. RODRIGO. And they are not farmers? 

BISHOP BACANI. Yes, in the sense given here. 

MR. RODRIGO. So if I am the owner, and I want to 
evade this provision, all I have to do is not to hire 
regular farm workers. 

BISHOP BACANI. That case will then have to fall 
under the following clause: “in the case of other farm 
workers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof.” 


will first approve the amend- MR. RODRIGO. Yes, but those other workers are not 

cAnf ° omniissioner Bacani with respect to the first given the right to own the land. Is that it? 
senience. 


MR. DE LOS REYES. I 
objection. 


am not insisting. There is no 


BISHOP BACANI. Yes. 
MS. NIEVA. That is right. 


“Tif ^ Bacani amendment reads this ' 

ine state shall by law undertake an agrarian re 

f3ri. wS ^ght of farmers and re; 

armworkers WHO ARE LANDLESS to own din 

farmwnV'^^ V the lands they till or, in the case of c 
famworkers, to receive a just share of the fmits t 


MR. RODRIGO. I was just talking to somebody from 
Quezon Province, and he told me that in coconut areas 
there are no farmers. Is this right? He said there are no 
farmers in coconut areas because they do not plow 
every year, they do not plant yearly but they just plant 
once and then wait for the coconut to grow. There are 
only coconut watchers or coconut pickers. 


MR. RODRIGO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog- 


BISHOP BACANI. I myself would not be able to . 
answer that. May I refer this to the Committee, Com- 
missioner Rodrigo? 


THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed. 

MR. RODRIGO. The ones who are covered b^ 
sentence are farmers and regular farm workers wh 
iBiidlcss. What is the proponent’s concept of a f' 
who does not own land? Is he somebody who ' 
another person’s land? Is that correct? 


MR. RODRIGO. Yes. 

MR. TADEO Commissioner Rodrigo, kapag sinabi 
nating “farmer, mayroong tenancy relation na tinutu- 
koy. Ang ibig sabihin ng tenancy relation, mayroon 
kang rental na ibinibigay sa iyong panginoon na inay-ari 
ng lupa. Sa ilalim ng niyugan, kapag tayo’y naghati, ang 
two-thirds ay sa panginoong may lupa at one-third sa 
magsasaka. Ito ang tinatawag na rental na ibinigay; may- 
roong tenancy relation. Hindi natin puwedeng sabihin 
ito dahil batay dito sa isang thesis na ginawa ni Col. 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


13 


Virgilio David, sinasabi niya na mayroong 515,000 na 
tenant farmer families ang nasasangkot na mayroong 
sharing. Ang hatian po kasi sa niyugan, one-third, two- 
thirds — two-thirds sa panig ng panginoong may lupa at 
one-tliird sa panig ng tenant. 

MR. RODRIGO. Samakatuwid, ang ibig bang sabihin 
ng “tenancy” ay “crop sharing”? Kung mayroong “crop 
sharing,” iyan ba ang kahulugan ng tenancy? Kapag ako 
ang mayroong plantation ng coconut, at aalisin ko ang 
crop sharing . . . susuwelduhan ko lang ang mga pipitas 
ng niyog at wala na bang tenancy? 

MR. TADEO. Wala pong tenancy. Babagsak sila sa 
farm workers. 

MR. RODRIGO. Ngayon, sapagkat walang tenancy, 
ang karapatan lamang ng farm workers ay “just share.” 
Wala silang karapatang magmay-ari noong lupa. 

MR. TADEO. Ngunit kung regular ang participation 
ng farm workers, primary sa production. 

MR. RODRIGO. Kung regular. Ngunit kung bHang 
may-ari ng lupa, hindi ko gagawing regular at uupa ako 
ngayon ng isang grupo. Sa isang taon, uupa naman ako 
ng ibang grupo. Hindi magiging regular. Samakatuwid, 
hindi babagsak sa kategoriya ng “tenancy,” kayat hindi 
sila maaaring magmay-ari ng lupa. Ganoon po ba? 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, we are instituting 
here a new provision which will take effect upon"* rati- 
fication. In that instance, there is already a history to 
look at. When we say that a particular piece of land 
comes under the agrarian reform provisions of the 
Constitution, then we can also look into the history of 
the relationship between that owner and the farm 
worker as defined over the years. In other words. 
Madam President, that landowner may not, upon ratifi- 
cation, change their relationship to get around the law 
because, after all, there would be records on what the 
relationship was. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog- 
nized. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Parang maganda yata ang tanong 
ni Commissioner Rodrigo. Doon sa deliberations, 
lumabas ang punto na ang sacada ay hindi kasama sa 
tinatawag na “farm workers.” Nabanggit ni Com- 
missioner Rodrigo na ang principle diyan ay mangyaya- 
ring irregular — seasonal worker na maaaring palitan at 
mas nakakahawig ng sacada kaysa isang regular farm 
worker. Ito ang sinasabi niya na maaaring loophole ng 
ganoong provision. That is the reason why Commission- 
er Monsod answered that the history of the relationship 
should be a safeguard against this possibility of circum- 


venting that provision of a landlord changing his rela- 
tionship with the tenants upon ratification of the 
Constitution. I think that is an important consideration. 

Thank you. Madam President. 

MR. RODRIGO. Samakatuwid, ang isang hahmbawa 
nito ay iyong isang may-ari ng coconut plantation at ang 
kanyang pasunod sa kanyang mga trabahador ay “crop 
sharing” at iyan ay ipmasiya niyang palitan at gawing 
suwelduhan. Halimbawang limang taon nang suweldu- 
han? Titingnan pa rin ba ang history? At kung bago 
noong nakaraang limang taon, ang pasunod ay crop 
sharing, his workers will come under tlie first category' 
instead of under the second category. Ga:ioon ba? 

BISHOP BACANI. In that case, there would be no 
practical difference because if they escape the tenn 
“farmers” they would, under that circumstance, fall 
under regular farm workers. 

MR. RODRIGO. If there is crop sharing. 

BISHOP BACANI. No, if there is no crop sharing and 
they are paid for coming regularly, they would fall 
under the category of regular farm workers. 

MR. RODRIGO. Pero ang sinasabi ko nga, kung ako 
ay nagbabayad lamang ng pipitas, hindi ako kukuha ng 
mga regular na pipitas. Madali naman ang pumitas ng 
niyog. Kayat kukuha ako ng iba’t ibang tagapitas nang 
hindi maging regular ang tnga ito. 

MR. MONSOD. I think the example of the Com- 
missioner regarding workers who have been seasonal 
workers for the past five years would fall under the 
second part where they are entitled to receive a just 
share of the fruits. 

MR. RODRIGO. Yes. 

MR. MONSOD. If upon ratification of the Constitu- 
tion a change in the relationship of a regular farm 
worker is made, it is quite obvious in that instance that 
the intent is to go around the law and, therefore, the 
facts would speak for themselves. 

MR. RODRIGO. Suppose, before ratification, nabali- 
taan doon sa Quezon na mayroong pinag-uusapang 
probisyon ang Con-Corn, maaaring bago ma-ratify ang 
Constitution ay papalitan nila ang pasunod sa mga 
trabahador nila. At hindi lang iyan, sinabi sa akin ni 
Ginoong Quintana, ex-Batasan MP, na maaaring kumam- 
panya silang huwag aprubahan ang Constitution sa 
Quezon Province. Iyan ay isipin dm natin. 

MR. MONSOD. Yes. 

MR. RODRIGO. Narinig ni Commissioner Ople. 
Nandito si Ginoong Quintana kangina. 


14 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


MR. MONSOD. We realize, Madam President, that 
there will be some gray areas here. There will always be 
gray areas when we come out with an Article like this. 
With respect to the concerns of ex-Batasan MP Quin- 
tana, one reason why the Committee is willing to accept 
the amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes is that we 
are hoping that that would solve some of his concerns. 

MR. RODRIGO. There is another thing which I want 
to clarify. Do we mean to say that “crop sharing” is 
identical with the word “tenancy,” that whenever there 
is “crop sharing,” there is “tenancy”? 

THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Tadeo answer 
that question? 

MR. RODRIGO. Is “tenancy” synonymous with 
“crop sharing”? In many advanced countries of the 
world, even in the United States, there is crop sharing. If 
we now say that crop sharing means tenancy, that 

would not be fair because crop sharing is unlike 
tenancy. 

MR. TADEO. Kung mayroong crop sharing, ay 
mayroong tenancy relation. 

MR. RODRIGO. Kahit doon sa atin sa Bulacan ay 
mayroong tinatawag na “hunos sa gapas, hunos sa 
anun. ng mga gagapas, sa halip na bayaran ng salapi 
y mayroong natatanggap na hunos. At ang mga nagta- 
bayaran ng salapi, mayroong hunos sa 
fp c umaani binibigyan sDa ng kaunting kapar- 

u nagkakaroon ng crop sharing, 

ivrmo sabihin niyan ay iyong mga gumapas at 

y g mga nagtanim ay mayroon ng tenancy relation? 

Wanlf tadeo. lyon pala ang ibig ninyong sabihin 


MR. RODRIGO. Hindi. Isang 
mayroon pang iba. 


halimbawa lang iyan. 


T^ma po iyan. Hindi ko lang k 
akikita kung ano iyong iniisip ninyo tungkol sa cr 

mga hunos at gapas at giik 
amu a sa atin sa Bulacan, sa isang daan at da 

^>ig ibinibigay sa mai 
gagapas at amm na kaban sa gumigiik. Hindi po iyon a 
ibig kong sabilung crop sharing. Ang ibig ko po 
sabihm ng crop sharing na tinugon ko po L ^yo 1 
ngma ay iyong binibigyan kita ne rental » - ^ ^ 
ang ibig kong sabihin kanginrSn 1 p " tom !y 
ang tinatawag naming mga hired laborers.. 

MR. OPLE. Madam President. 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized. 

MR. OPLE. I wanted to put a question to Com- 
missioner Rodrigo, and, perhaps, also to the Committee, 


depending on his answers. There is no necessary correla- 
tion between tenancy and crop sharing, depending on 
how you define crop sharing. 

Dito po sa palayan at maisan ngayon, ang nakakara- 
ming nabiyayaan ng reporma sa lupa ay hindi iyong 
tumanggap ng CLT na titulo. Iyon siguro ay mga labin- 
limang porsiyento lamang. Iyong walumpu’t limang 
porsiyento, iyon ang mga dating tenants na ngayon 
ay nauwi sa leasehold. Mayroon ding matatawag na 
sharing iyan — 75-25. Datapwa’t ang kaibahan, itong 
dating tenant, bagamat hindi siyang may-ari, siya 
ngayon ang complete manager ng kaniyang sinasaka. 
Samakatuwid ay hindi na tenant pero nagbabayad pa 
rin ng katumbas ng dalawampu’t limang porsiyento 
noong ani. Iyong leasehold, sa aming paningin, mas 
mataas ang naging antas ngayon kaysa doon sa magsa- 
saka lamang. 

MR. RODRIGO. Sang-ayon ako riyan, sapagkat ang 
inam noong “leasehold” ay ang ibinabayad na buwis ng 
magsasaka ay eksaktong halaga. Kayat, pag pinalaki 
niya ang ani noong kaniyang bukid, lahat ng madadag- 
dag na ani ay kanya na. Hindi katulad ng “crop 
sharing.” Nadagdagan ang ani, nadagdagan din ang 
kaparte ng may-ari. Pero sa leasehold may tiyak na 
ibabayad. 

Kapag nadagdagan ang ani, pag nagmasipag ang 
magsasaka, nagtanim ng vegetables, nagtanim ng ibang 
mga bagay sa lupa, ang lahat ay kanya. 


MR. OPLE. Hindi lang iyon, kundi lahat ng manage- 
ment decision ay nasa kamay ng nasa leasehold. Hindi 
katulad ng tenant na mayroong katiwalang araw-araw 
ay nag-uutos sa iyo kung ano ang gagawin mo. Samaka- 
tuwid, itatanong ko lamang sa Komite, ito bang lease- 
hold bilang isang uri ng land tenure ay kabilang dito sa 
agrarian reform na ating pinag-uusapan? 

MR. TADEO. Magandang katanungan. Commissioner 
Ople. Gusto ko lang liwanagin ang ibig sabiliin ng share 
tenancy — iyong 50-50, 60-40, 55-45, 70-30. Ito hong 
leasehold ay kasama rito sa ating pinag-uusapan dahil sa 
sinasabi nating retention limit, lalo na iyong hindi 
owner-cultivator, na nilinaw kanina ni Commissioner 
Aquino. Halimbawa, sabihin natin na ang gamitin natin 
ay ang P.D. No. 27, na ang seven hectares below ang 
maaaring iwan sa isang panginoong may lupa. Kaya 
iyong maiiwan sa kanya na seven hectares and below ay 
under leasehold system, kaya kasama rito ang leasehold 
system, dahil doon sa abolition ng share tenancy. 


MR. OPLE. Magandang balita iyan para sa maraming 
mga tenants ngayon na ang unang hakbang sa kanilang 
liberasyon marahil ay hindi iyong tahasan o tandisan 
na siyang magiging may-ari ng lupa, kung hindi maaaring 
nandiyan sa intermediate stage, sa kalagitnaan na lease- 
hold muna; hindi siya ang may-ari, datapwat siya ang 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


15 


may poder, siya ang manager, siya ang nagdedesisyon 
tungkol sa kanyang buhay. 

Salamat po, Ginang Pangulo. 

MR. RODRIGO. Thank you very much, Com- 
missioner Ople. Now, just one more question. I had 
already asked this cursorily in a past session. I refer to 
the word “own” which 1 consider a very important 
word. I would not want to raise false hopes among our 
farmers. Ownership, as it is defined now in civil law, has 
different rights attached to it: jus posidendi, the right 
to possess; jus utendi, the right to a use; jus fruendi, 
the right to the fruits; and jus disponendi, the right to 
dispose ... I would discard jus abutendi or the right 
to consume the thing by its use, because it is anti- 
social. But then since we say that the farmers will own 
the land they till, can they dispose of it or can they sell 
it? 

MS. AQUINO. To the best of my knowledge, all of 
the laws pertaining to the implementation of land 
reform as a policy of the government would program 
and limit the right of a beneficiary-farmer who has been 
given an Operation Land Transfer or a certificate of 
land transfer and would have delimited options in imme- 
diate disposition of the property. Even with the Home- 
stead Act, one is not allowed to dispose a homestead 
that has been granted to him within a period of 50 years 
from the period or from the time it was granted. It may 
be a question of programming or regulating or de- 
limiting prerogatives of disposition. It is provided by 
law. 

MR. RODRIGO. In other words, may Congress limit 
the farmer’s right to sell, to dispose, even to mortgage 
the land? 

MS. AQUINO. Yes. 

MR. RODRIGO. Another right is the right to be- 
queath. We know that we have close family ties in the 
Philippines. Many people work and they try to have a 
parcel of land for the security of their children. Let us 
say that a farmer obtains under this land reform pro- 
gram a 2-hectare land. He has five children. The farmer 
dies. Will his five children inherit the land? 

MR. TADEO. Maaaring manahin. 

MR. RODRIGO. Ng lima niyang anak? 

MR. TADEO. Hindi po. Ngunit ang batayan po kasi 
nitong land fragmentation ay ang economic family-size 
farm; hindi mo ito napapasabog. Hatiin mo, halimbawa, 
sa lima mong anak ang matitira dito; sabihm nating .5 
hectares o 5,000 square meters lamang. Hindi na iyan 
makasasapat sa kanyang pamilya. Ang tunay na inten- 
syon ng agrarian reform program, kapanabay nito ang 
pagtutulak ng national industrialization, ay ang sobrang 


lakas-paggawa na papasok sa industriya para mapanatili 
ang economic family-size farm. 

MR. RODRIGO. So, this is another limitation on the 
ownership, should this proposal be approved as a 
constitutional provision. Congress can then place limits 
on the right of the heirs to inherit from the fanner who 
will be benefited by this provision. 

Now, just one last point. May he transform a portion 
of the land which is agricultural to a residential lot? 

MR. TADEO. Under RA 1199, ang isang ektaryang 
sinasaka ay nagkakaloob ng 300 sq. m. na home lot. 

MR. RODRIGO. So, does Congress also have the 
discretion on this matter? 

MS. AQUINO. Yes. 

MR. TADEO. Hindi maaaring subdivision, maaaring 
magkaroon siya ng home lot o lupang tirahan. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, tliis first sentence in 
Section 5 has been sufficiently discussed. May I ask tirat 
we take a vote on it. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there still need to read it again? 

MR. RAMA. There is no more need to do so. We have 
read it several times. 


VOTING 

THE PRESIDENT. Those who are in favor of the 
proposed Bacani amendment to the first sentence of 
Section 5, please raise their hand. (Several Members 
raised their hand.) 

Tliose who are against, please raise their hand. (No 
Member raised his hand.) 

The results show 30 votes in favor, none against; the 
amendment is approved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President. There are still pro- 
ponents ahead of Commissioner de !os Reyes, but 
Commissioner de los Reyes is requesting that his amend- 
ment which has been accepted by the Committee be 
voted upon before we take up the other amendments. 

THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner de los Reyes 
please read his proposed amendment. 


MR. DE LOS REYES. As an additional sentence to 
Section 5: THE STATE SHALL RESPECT THE 

RIGHTS OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE DETER- 
MINATION OF THE RETENTION LIMITS. 


16 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


VOTING 


THE PRESIDENT. Those who are in favor of the de 
los Reyes amendment, please raise their hand. (Several 
Members raised their hand.) 

Those who are against, please raise their hand. (No 
Member raised his hand.) 

The results show 36 votes in favor and no vote 
against; the amendment is approved. 

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, just for the 
record, I think Commissioner Villegas should be a co- 
sponsor of the amendment I presented.* 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, on the same second 
sentence of Section 5, I ask that Commissioner Trenas 
be recognized. • ^ 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Trefias is recog- 


MR. TRE5JAS. Madam President, may I propose an 
^endment to the last part of Section 5 which says: 
and subject to a just and progressive system of com- 
pensation. I propose to eliminate “and progressive 
system of’ so that it will read: “and subject to a just 
compensation.” 


Madam President, in almost all the provisions of tl 
Constitution, especially in the Bill of Rights, we ha 
uniformly used the words “just compensation.” In ca 
pnvate property is taken for public use, we use t! 
wor s just compensation.” In jurisprudence, it h 
een interpreted by the Supreme Court in a lot 
cases. However, it seems strange that in this provisit 
on a^anan reform, in which a property of a landowr 
'^ •11 ^od ^ven to farm workers, just compensate 
w e quahfied by the words “progressive systen 
cause again a lot of legal complications as 
u 11 “'^®^’^®tation of “progressive system” a 

1 e ay e payment of just compensation. 


MR. MONSOD. Madam President. 

Tffi PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog- 


inchide th^woM^‘‘ Committee decide^ 

Z . ” we intended it to I 

™ The phrase 

bigger tracts of land be made lowe, p™squarrr 
to smto tracts of land. That was the id?a behj 
It has nothmg to do with the manner of payment E 
means does it have any allusion to the payment ( 
percent down or 90 percent to be paid later on Ii 
only in the context of reflecting the market reaU 
real estate transactions. 


If the honorable Commissioner is willing to accept 
that kind of interpretation, that this reflect the fact that 
bigger tracts of land usually are priced at a lower price 
per square meter, then that may not be necessary in this 
sense. We just want to get away from a purely market 
price and to refine it in that sense. 

MR. TRENAS. Even in that sense, it will still end in 
“just compensation,” without the use of the words 
“PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM.” 

My purpose here is to simplify and use it uniformly 
because in the Bill of Rights, we used the words “just 
compensation.” However, to that extent, why add 
“PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM”? So it will have a more 
uniform interpretation, we eliminate “PROGRESSIVE 
SYSTEM.” 

MS. NIEVA. Yes, maybe the explanation given by 
economist Mahar Mangahas might help. He said that all 
that this implies is that the compensation formula 
should be progressive in the sense that income taxation 
is progressive; that is, the proportion of the landowners’ 
sacrifice should be greater, the larger the size of the 
landed estate. For example, if the purchase price is 
P20,000 per hectare for the first 10 hectares, then it 
could be reduced to PI 5,000 per hectare for the next 
10 hectares; and PI 0,000 for the next 10 hectares and 
so on. 

MR. TRENAS. I agree with that. That is still just 
compensation. 

MR. MONSOD. Yes. In other words, the word 
“PROGRESSIVE” does not quaUfy the word “just,” 
but rather the word “compensation.” So, it would still 
resolve in a “just compensation.” Maybe this is an 
important point that we would like the body to vote on, 
whether it should still be included or subsumed in the 
word “JUST.” 

MR. TRENAS. From the explanation of the Com- 
mittee itself, it seems that the phrase “JUST AND 
PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM” is not necessary because it is 
included in “just compensation,” and this may just 
cause complications later on, especially since we have 
been using the words “just compensation.” That is my 
purpose here. 

MR. MONSOD. Yes. Madam President, may we ask 
the body’s judgment on it. I think the proponent has 
already explained, and so does the Committee. 

MR. TRENAS. Yes. The only amendment is to 
eliminate “PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM OF” and just 
make it “JUST COMPENSATION” to make it simpler. 

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President. 

FR. BERNAS. Madam President. 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


17 


I'HH PRHSlDliNT. Coinniissionor Benias is recog- 
nized. 

FR. BF.RNAS. We discussed earlier the idea of a 
progressive sysleni of compensation and I must admit, 
that it was before I discus,sed it with Commissioner 
Monsod. I lliink what is confusing the matter is the fact 
that when we speak of progressive taxation, the bigger 
the tax ba.se, the liigher the rate of tax. Here, what we 
are saying is Unit tiie bigger the land is, the lower the 
value per square meter. So, it is really regressive, not 
progressive. 

MR. MONSOD. Yes, Madam President, it is true. It is 
progressive with respect to the beneheiary and re- 
gressive with respect to the landowner. 

FR. BF:RNAS. But is it the intention of the Com- 
mittee tliat tlie owner should receive less than the 
market value? 

MR. MONSOD. It is not the intention of the Commit- 
tee that tlie owner should receive less than the just 
compensation. 

FR. BERNAS. In what way, therefore, is it beneficial 
to the buyer if the owner will not get less? 

MR. MONSOD. As we said earlier, it was only meant 
to reflect the market reality that in bigger tracts of land, 
the cost per square meter goes down. Since the priority 
of the land reform really starts from bigger tracts of 
land, there would be benefits to farmers, if the bigger 
tracts of land are first covered by the land reform 
program. 

FR. BERNAS. I am not sure that the word “pro- 
gressive” helps. 

MR. MONSOD. We agree, Madam President. 

FR. BERNAS. Because if the idea of a “progressive 
system” is that the buyer should actually pay less, but 
somebody else makes up for the difference, like the 
State, then it is clearly progressive in that sense for the 
tenant, and it is also Just for the owner. 

MR. MONSOD. Yes, Madam President, yesterday we 
answered that question in which we said that just com- 
pensation to the landowner does not necessarily mean 
that the full payment will come from the beneficiary, 
because in some cases, the State has to step in to make 
up the difference between what the farmers can afford 
and what is just compensation to the landowner. 

FR. BERNAS. If the meaning calls for a kind of 
subsidy from the State, rather than use the word pio- 
gressive,” it is probably better to use a different ex- 


pression clarifying the fact that this may involve subsidy 
by the State. 

MR. MONSOD. Yes, Madam President, in fact, we 
were saying that we want the body to decide because it 
may not be completely necessary at this point. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villegas is recog- 
nized. 

MR. VILLEGAS. Madam President, I just would like 
to express the same sentiment. As an economist, 1 find 
the word “progressive” really ambivalent in that specific 
context. When we say “progressive”' in economics, it 
really means the principle of giving more in law to those 
who have less in life, but somehow it does not capture 
this specific meaning in the phraseology that is used. I 
would use another word, or just delete “progressive.” 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, tlie Committee is 
also willing to consider an amplification of the ideas of 
Commissioner Benias, that in some cases the State may 
have to step in to make up the difference between just 
compensation to the landowner and affordable cost to 
the farmer. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. May I ask that Commissioner Concep- 
cion be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Concepcion is 
recognized; afterwards we will recognize Commissioner 
Rodrigo. 

MR. CONCEPCION. Thank you. 

I think the thrust of the amendiiient of Commissioner 
Trenas is that the term “just compensation” is used in 
several parts of the Constitution, and, therefore, it must 
have a uniform meaning. It cannot have in one part a 
meaning different from that which appears in the other 
portion. If, after all, the party whose property is taken 
will receive the real value of the property on just com- 
pensation, that is good enough. Any other qualification 
would lead to the impression that something else other 
than that meaning ot just compensation is used in other 
parts of the Constitution. 

Thank you. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog- 
nized. 

MR. RODRIGO. I was about to say what Commis- 
sioimr Concepcion said. 1 just want to add that the 
p lase just compensation” already has a definite mean- 
ing in jurisprudence. And, of course, I would like to 
leiteiate the fact that “just compensation” here is not 


18 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


the amount paid by the farmers. It is the amount paid 
to the owner, and this doe^ not necessarily have to come 
from the farmer. The State should subsidize this and 
pay a just compensation to the owner and let the tenant 
pay the State in accordance with the capacity of the 
farmer. If there is a difference, let the State subsidize 
the difference. So, I support the amendment of Com- 
missioner Trenas. 

FR. BERNAS. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bernas is recog- 
nized. 

FR. BERNAS. May I propose a substitute amend- 
ment to read: “just, AND WHERE NECESSARY, 
STATE-SUBSIDIZED compensation.” 


THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Trenas accept 
the proposed amendment of Commissioner Bernas? 


MR. TRENAS. May I have it again? 


FR. BERNAS. It will read: “ 
AND WHERE NECESSARY 
COMPENSATION.” 


and subject to a JUST, 
STATE-SUBSIDIZED 


MR. TRENAS. I accept. 


MR. OPLE. Yes. I object to constitutionalizing the 
subsidy. It is a power inherent in the State. The commit- 
ment to agrarian reform as a central policy of social 
justice is very imperative. And I think constitutionaliz- 
ing at this point an obligation of the State to subsidize 
purchases of lands under the land reform program might 
be taken as a mandate to fund all aspects of this pro- 
gram with taxpayers’ money, even if a little more 
imagination in planning and skillful implementation 
could save the people lots of money. Instead of giving 
a fiat right here in this Article, that the National 
Treasury ought to be opened all the way in order to 
subsidize the difference in costs, I think just compensa- 
tion to the landowner need not mean government 
subsidy. If subsidized compensation would become a 
built-in fiat in this Article, it will be made the rule 
rather than the exception. In the nature of the real 
world in which a government functions, it will tempt 
every land reform planner to begin by saying that the 
State must subsidize this. 

Thank you. Madam President. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, Commissioner Rega- 
lado would like to be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Regalado is recog- 
nized. 


MR. DA VIDE. Madam President, 
nized^ Commissioner Davide is recog- 

MR. DAVIDE. May I propose an amendment to the 
amendment? The amendment will read: “just com- 

GOV?Sm^En¥.” SUBSIDIZED BY THE 

ownw sense is, it must be just to the 

MR. TRENAS. Precisely. 

vain^ owner should get the full market 

the payment lVcom?trom"’"'‘' ’ 

his™opSfaTO„toem?' 

Davide, so it wohih kq 

BE SUBSIDIZED BY rarCOTER": 

MR. OPLE. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any other idea? 
Commissioner Ople is recognized. 


MR. REGALADO. Madam President, I propose an 
amendment to the proposed amendment of Com- 
missioner Trenas. I support him in his statement that 
the words “just compensation” should be used there 
because it has a jurisprudentially settled meaning, in- 
stead of putting in other ambivalent and ambiguous 
phrases which may be misconstrued, especially con- 
sidering the fact that the words “just compensation” 
appear in the different parts of the Constitution. How- 
ever, my proposed amendment would read: “subject to 
THE PRIOR PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION.” 
Let me explain. The purpose of this land distribution 
scheme is that those whose properties may be under 
land reform may be thereby placed in a position after 
they have relinquished a portion of their property to 
invest in other gainful occupation. That was one of the 
purposes mentioned by the Committee. If we just 
provide for payment of just compensation without 
stating at what particular time that payment should be 
made, what happens to the landowner who has now 
been dispossessed of his property? Where can he make 
investments since he has not been given payment? We 
are aware of the Land Bank bond wherein the amount 
is realizable only after the lapse of 20 years. It cannot 
even be used to pay PNB or DBF loans; it can only be 
used to pay taxes. 

Furthermore, it is also established in jurisprudence, in 
the case of Commissioner of Public Highways V 5 . San 
Diego, L-30098, February 18, 1970, that where a pro- 
perty has already been thereby condemned — I used the 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


19 


word “condemned” in the sense of expropriation, 
because that is tlie other tenn — even if there is already 
an award, such an award, even by a judicial order, is not 
realizable upon execution; so the poor landowner will 
Just have to wait patiently until such time as Congress 
appropriates the amount. 

In the case of Commissioner of Public Highways vs. 
San Diego, it was specifically stated that the judgment 
rendered requiring payment of the award determined 
as just compensation for the condemned property, and 
as a condition precedent for the transfer of the title to 
the government, cannot be realized upon execution, as 
the legislature must first appropriate the amount over 
and above the provisional deposit. 

So, my question here is: If we do not require prior 
payment, what happens to the landowner now? Must 
he wait indefinitely? While in tlie meantime we have 
given priority to the landless, we have created another 
problem for the erstwhile landed gentry since they 
cannot, in any way, use either the property or the sup- 
posed proceeds from the property of which they were 
dispossessed. If the landless have rights, even the landed 
also have rights; or, as Clarence Darrow says, “Even the 
rich also have rights.” 

We are not talking about the rich here. He is already 
parting with his property, and yet we go into an 
ephemeral, indefinite statement, “subject to the pay- 
ment of just compensation.” And the question is: Where 
in point of time will that compensation be made? That 
is why I ask that this amendment be accepted subject to 
the prior payment of just compensation. 

MR. BENGZON. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bengzon is recog- 
nized. 

MR. BENGZON. There is no need to get excited, 
Madam President, because the Committee is not insen- 
sitive to the needs of the landowners. When the Com- 
mittee placed this paragraph or statement here, it was 
the sense that the landowner would be immediately paid 
the just compensation. Otherwise, that compensation 
would not really be just at all. 

And apropos of this, I would like to ask a question 
of Commissioner Ople in the remarks that he just 
made — that when he objected to the constitutionaliza- 
tion of the State subsidy, I hope he did not mean that 
the State would not in any case at all come to the rescue 
of the farmer where necessary and pay the landowner in 
the event that the farmer is unable to pay the just 
compensation. 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, I think I made my 
meaning clear that subsidies may be necessary to make 
up the difference in price so that the landowner may be 
justly compensated. But, at the same time, subsidy must 
always be a policy of last resort. And I think the less 


that is said about it, the better so that it does not be- 
come an open invitation in the future to potential con- 
fabulators. We know all about some of these scandals in 
land pricing. It is very easy for a government bureau- 
crat and a landowner in Mindanao to fix a price so that 
both of them will gain at the expense of the taxpayer. 

So, I am not against subsidy from the State. What I 
am saying is that this should be a last resort and it is 
amply covered by all the existmg laws. May I remmd 
Commissioner Bengzon Uiat just tlie otlier day P29 
billion was allocated as government subsidy to a few 
government banks which are government financing 
institutions like tlie PNB and DBP in particular. This 
P29 billion is bigger than the budget of the Ministry of 
National Defense, the entire Armed Forces, the Ministry 
of Health and the Ministry of Education, and I suspect 
that we have to subsidize from pure taxpayers’ money 
these several financial institutions because we have been 
faced with a fait accompli. Tliis has been going on for 
some time because there is no curb on it. 

And so, I agree that we subsidize the purchase of 
lands, but to raise it to the level of a constitutional 
mandate^ I would have serious scruples about that. 

Thank you. Madam President. 

FR. BERNAS. Madam President. 

MR. TADEO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bernas is recog- 
nized. 

FR. BERNAS. Just one statement. 

MR. TADEO. Sandah lang po. Madam President. 
Tungkol sa pagbabayad ng lupa, gusto ko po lamang na 
malaman ninyo ang panig ng magbubukid. 

Sa halim ng RA 3844, on the rights of preemption 
and redemption, ang pinagbabatayan ditong naapruba- 
han noong August 8, 1963 — kaya naman monumental 
ang araw na ito — ay reasonable capacity of the farmer to 
pay. Sa ilalim ng P.D. No. 27, ang naging halaga ng lupa 
per hectare ay P7,000 to P8,000 plus 6 percent interest 
for 1 5 years of equal annual amortization, inabot na ng 
PI 5,000 at huhulugan pa iyan for 15 years. Nandiyan 
ang Minister of Agrarian Reform at ano ang sinasabi 
niya? Nine percent lamang ang nakabayad. 

Sana ang inyong mga mungkahi ay hindi magpabigat 
sa aming mga magbubukid kung hindi magpapagaan. 
lyon lamang ang pakiusap ko sa kagalanggalang kong 
mga kasama. 

FR. BERNAS. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bernas is recog- 
nized. 

FR. BERNAS. Madam President, two points only. 
First, after listening to the observations of Com- 


20 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


missioner Ople and on the understanding that it does 
not exclude the possibility of subsidy, I would gladly 
remove that because I also want to avoid a situation 
where we make acquisition of land so easy that, in 
effect, it may encourage the inefficient use of resources. 
So, provided that it is understood that we are not ex- 
cluding subsidy whenever it is necessary, then I would 
be willing to limit the matter to the phrase “just com- 
pensation.” 

MS. NIEVA. Madam President, the Committee ac- 
cepts. 

THE PRESIDENT. Will the Committee please allow 
Commissioner Bemas to finish his statement? 

FR. BERNAS. My second pomt is: I would object to 
the addition of the phrase “PRIOR COMPENSATION” 
because even if one looks at existing jurisprudence on 
expropriation, there is no requirement of immediate, 
prior compensation. Just compensation simply requires 
that there is an assurance that compensation will be 
given. Jurisprudence has not required prior com'pensa- 
tion. So, if at this stage when we are trying to do some- 
thing for the underprivileged, we make expropriation 
more difficult, then again we will be retrogressing. 

Thank you. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The original amendment of Com- 
missioner Trenas stands. 

MR. TRENAS. And it has been accepted. 

MS. NIEVA. Yes, the Committee has accepted the 
frefias amendment. 

MR. TRENAS. I am very grateful to the Committee. 

Thank you very much. 


The results show 39 votes in favor and none against; 
the amendment is approved. 

As many as are in favor of inserting the word 
“PRIOR” . . . 

/ 

MR. REGALADO. Before we do that. Madam Prc.s- 
ident, may I just explain? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Regalado is recog- 
nized. 

MR. REGALADO. It is not correct to state that juris- 
prudence does not require prior payment. Even tlie 
recent presidential decrees of the President always 
require a partial deposit of a certain percentage and the 
rest by a guaranteed payment. What 1 am after here is 
that, as Commissioner Bernas has said, there must at 
least be an assurance. That assurance may be in the form 
of a bond which may be redeemable later. But to say 
that there has never been a situation where prior pay- 
ment is not required, that is not so even under the 
Rules of Court as amended by presidential decrees. Even 
the government itself, upon entry on the land, has to 
make a deposit and the rest thereafter will be guaran- 
teed under the judgment of a court, but which judg- 
ment, as 1 have pointed out, is not even realizable by 
executory process. Here is the government coming in 
now. Does it mean to say that the government can take 
its own time in detennining when the payment is to 
be made? At least simultaneously, there should be an 
assurance in the form of a partial payment in cash or 
other modes of payment, and the rest thereof being 
guaranteed by bonds, the issuance whereof should be 
simultaneous with the transfer. That is my only purpose 
in saying that there should be prior payment — not pay- 
ment in cash physically but, at least, contract for 
payment in the form of an assurance, a guarantee or a 
promissory undertaking. 


MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may we just read 
the phrase as now accepted by the Committee? 


THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed. 

MR. MONSOD. The phrase shall read: “and subjec 
to the payment of just compensation.” 


VOTING 

"’“.first, and 

anrendment of inserting the word'-TRlOR”* w°e"wiU 
vote on that later. 


As many as are in favor of the Treflas amendment, 
please rarse then hand. (Semral Members raised their 
hand.) 


THE PRESIDENT. WUl Commissioner Regalado 
please restate his proposed amendment? 

MR. REGALADO. The proposed amendment will 
read: “and subject to THE PRIOR PAYMENT OF just 
compensation.” 

THE PRESIDENT. It was accepted by the Commit- 
tee. 

MR. REGALADO. The word “PAYMENT” there 
should be understood in the sense that I have explained, 
that there must at least be an assurance on the part of 
the government. 

FR. bernas. Madam President. 


As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No 

Member raised his hand.) 


the president. Commissioner Bernas is recog- 
nized. 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 198 


21 


FR. BERNAS. I must say, I did misunderstand Com- 
missioner Regalado. I read him as requiring prior full 
compensation. But if the intention is merely to maintain 
what obtains now, mainly, that it is enough that there 
is a partial deposit as it exists under existing law, 1 
would agree with him that that is fine. But then I would 
still oppose putting it down in writing by itself because 
it can be construed as requiring prior full compensation. 

THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say? 

MR. REGALADO. Madam President, Commissioner 
Bengzon has just told me that anyway those remarks are 
already in the Record. And my remarks, according to 
Commissioner Bengzon, have been taken into account 
and have been accepted in the sense in which they were 
intended. Then, provided it appears in the Record that 
that is the purpose of the amendment and such ex- 
planation in the Record shall stay, I withdraw the 
proposed amendment to the amendment. 

MR. DA VIDE. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DAVIDE. If the withdrawal is based on what 
was supposedly agreed with the Committee, I will still 
object because we will have the concept of just com- 
pensation for the farmers and the farm workers more 
difficult than those others in cases of eminent domain. 
So, we should not make a distinction as to the manner 
of the exercise of eminent domain or expropriations and 
the manner that just compensation shall be paid. It 
should be uniform in all others because if we now allow 
the interpretation of Commissioner Regalado to be the 
concept of just compensation, then we are making it 
hard for the farmers and the farm workers to enjoy the 
benefits allowed them under the agrarian reform policy. 

MR. BENGZON. Madam President, as we stated 
earlier, the term just compensation” is as it is defined by 
the Supreme Court in so many cases and which we have 
accepted. So, there is no difference between “just com- 
pensation’ as stated here in Section 5 and “just com- 
pensation” as stated elsewhere. There are no two 
different interpretations. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may we also state 
that we have accepted the opinion or interpretation of 
Commissioner Bernas, that the State may, in some cases, 
have to step in to make up the difference. So, it does 
not necessarily follow that these will hurt the farmers. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog- 
nized. 

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, I would like to 
pose what I consider an important question for the 


Committee to answer, because we have practically ap- 
proved the whole section already. When we speak of the 
right of fanners, farm workers, the landless, etc., are 
they obliged to exercise that right? Shall they be com- 
pelled to exercise that right or does it mean that they 
are free to use or not to use the land? 

MS. NIEVA. That is right. We feel that tliis is tlieir 
right, but this is a right that they may waive if they 
prefer to do so. They are not obliged to avail of that 
right. It is there. 

MR. OPLE. Madam President. 

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President. 

MR. OPLE. Is that the official interpretation of the 
Committee? 

MS. NIEVA. Yes. 

MR. OPLE. May I point out that under the Labor 
Code, the rights may not be waived by the workers. 

MR. BENGZON. The Labor Code has to give way to 
the constitutional provision in this case. 

MS. NIEVA. Yes, because the farmers may not want 
to exercise their right. 

MR. OPLE. Because this interpretation can actually 
legitimize in advance various pressures so that the 
farmers will not exercise the right that the same Consti- 
tution now purports to give them. I think it is a 
dangerous interpretation. Madam President. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President. 

MR. COLAYCO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Colayco is recog- 
nized. 

MR. COLAYCO. The exercise of this right by the 
farmers involves assumption of obligations. 

MS. AQUINO. Yes. 

MR. COLAYCO. Obligations which he may either not 
be in a position to pay or may not wish to assume at all. 
So, I agree with the conceptual thinking expressed by 
the Committee. 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, may 1 pomt out that 
the reason we are building certain innovations institu- 
tionalizing people s participation at various levels of the 
agrarian reform is precisely to uisuiv that these rights 
will become effective and that they will, in fact, be 
exercised, especially considering the realities in many 


22 


THURSDAY. AUGUST 7, 1986 


parts of our countryside where all the social structures 
are stacked up historically against the exercise of these 
rights. We may have it in the law but the day-to-day 
social pressures will make it impossible for many of the 
beneficiaries to exercise these rights or even to invoke 
them unless there are countervailing means of enabling 
them to exercise these rights. And if the position of the 
Committee now becomes official, these rights can be 
waived because the obligations may be declined. I think 
we are treading on a dangerous borderline that may be 
self-defeating in the end. But I leave these all to the 
Committee. 

The other point I want to make is whether or not the 
Cornmittee accepts the fact that the reason why in most 
countries land reform programs have been successful is 
because of newly liberated resources from land reform; 
that is, the new capital made available to expropriated 
landowners have been turned into fuel for industrializa- 
tion. This was what happened in Taiwan. Within five 
years of the land reform program, $2 billion (Taiwan) 
was released for the industrialization of Taiwan and, 
therefore, there was some synergy at work in a land 
reform policy. It helped the farmer; the social purposes 
were met but, at the same time, the need for economic 
development and accelerated industrialization were also 
met with the same weapon. 

And so, I would like to alert the Committee with my 
mtention to propose a brief amendment under the same 
section which would try to optimize these resources 
oc ed up in the land but which will be released as a 
resu t of the land reform policy for industrialization. 

Thank you. 


MS. AQUINO. Madam President, for the Committee. 


II ^^MA. Madam President, I think we shov 
a ow the Committee members to eat first so they c 

Membe^ ^swer correctly the questions from t 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Aquino desires to 
rep y. an we listen first to Commissioner Aquino? 


MS. AQUINO. Yes, Madam President. The Commit- 

ee wou ike to clarify and eliminate the cobwebs that 
are presented so far. 


sociaHnctw^p'^^ ^^^cept and the mandate ol 

to a comnnk'^'^ ^ reform program do not amount 
tions which thp workers to assume obliga- 

words the rn ^ Prepared to assume. In othei 

from ihe landZ“e° Thfell™ cooperation 

the mtended beneficiary of the program. The right tc 

waive is not recognized when it ammmto • 

r- r xi. o . 11 amounts to a waiver m 

favor of another. Surely, we will recognize the freedom 

of choice pertainmg to the worker, on whether or nol 

he is willing to assume the obligation. 


I hope that clarifies the conceptual variance. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President. 

MR. OPLE. The interpretation is acceptable to me in 
the light of the freedom of choice that we have, but the 
caveat I have made in the real world, I think, is very real 
as well, and I will be grateful if the Committee can take 
that into account. 

SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

MR. RAMA. It is already twelve thirty- seven. Madam 
President; I move that we suspend the session until two- 
thirty. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended until 
two-thirty in the afternoon. 

It was 12:37 p.m. 

RESUMPTION OF SESSION 

At 2:47 p.m., the session was resumed. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, on the issue raised by 
Commissioner Ople, Commissioner Nolledo would like 
to have two minutes to comment on that issue of the 
waiver of rights by the farmers. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner NoHedo is recog- 
nized. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you, Madam President. 

I would like to make a few remarks on the statement 
of the Committee that the rights under the land reform 
program are subject to a waiver. Madam President, I 
join Commissioner Ople in his opinion that the members 
of the Committee in making that statement are treading 
on dangerous grounds. The land reform program is 
societal in nature, that it is demanded by the imperative 
need to diffuse property ownership as a matter of 
national and public policy. If we adopt the general rule 
that the rights under the land reform program of the 
government are subject to waiver, then we will open the 
avenue towards circumvention thereof by the landlords 
in many subtle ways. So, I will agree to the statement of 
the Committee that we cannot compel a tenant to 
assume obligations or to avail of the benefits afforded 
by the land reform program, if that statement is given a 
restrictive meaning, because if the tenant does not avail 
of the benefits and rights under the land reform pro- 
gram, then he will forfeit his right and his share should 
accrue to other beneficiaries of land reform. 

So, I think, the general rule is that the benefits and 
rights under the land reform program of the govern- 
ment should not be subject to waiver, because the land 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


23 


reform program is grounded on public policy. Otherwise 
we will have what is known as unique influence. The 
landowners may put their minds over the minds of the 
tenants whose intelligence may not be at par with the 
landowners, so they have many ways of threatening the 
tenants to make the waiver for a consideration. And 
these tenants are poor. They do not enjoy financial 
capacity. They may be paid, for example, P5,000 to 
sign deeds of waiver. And if we adopt the statement of 
the Committee in this sense, I am sorry to say that the 
land reform program of the government will be com- 
pletely negated. 

Thank you very much. Madam President. 

MR. LERUM. Madam President, may I be recog- 
nized? 

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed. 

MR. LERUM. As a member of the Committee, my 
understanding is that the provision does not con- 
template a waiver but that the tenant may not want to 
exercise his right. That is its meaning. In other words, 
while we provide here that the tenant has a right to 
own, but if he does not want to buy, why should we 
force him to buy if, for example, he does not have the 
means to do so? As a member of the Committee, that is 
my understanding. There is no waiver, but the tenant 
may not want to exercise his right. There is a big dif- 
ference between a waiver and not wanting to exercise a 
right. For example, under the Constitution, there is a 
provision there that says that the workers have a right to 
form unions. But there are many workers who do not 
want to form unions. We are not forcing them. They 
have that right but they do not only want to exercise 
that right. So, my understanding, as a member of the 
Committee, is that it is not a waiver but not wanting to 
exercise a right granted to them. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Com- 
missioner Sarmiento be recognized to amend the second 
sentence of Section 5. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Sarmiento is recog- 
nized. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, my amend- 
ment is an amendment by deletion. I move that we 
delete the words “priorities” and “and other conditions 
as Congress may prescribe.” May I briefly explain my 
amendment? It is my humble submission that the in- 
clusion of these words will seriously impair the agrarian 
reform program in our country. This will further limit 
the scope of agrarian reform. 

Madam President, we must remember that in 1972, 
President Marcos declared the whole country covered 
by land reform through P.D. No. 2. A month later, P.D. 
No. 27 was issued limiting the scope of land reform only 


to rice and com lands. He later issued several decrees 
further impairing the agrarian reform program. For 
instance, he issued P.D. No. 1 942 which limits the scope 
of land reform. Under that decree, lands which were 
newly converted to rice and com are exempted from 
land transfer. In 1974, he issued General Order No. 47 
on Corporate Farming Program. Under this order, land- 
owners have found a convenient excuse to avoid land 
reform by leasing their landholdings to a corporate 
farm. As of 1979, about 15,000 hectares of land 
originally occupied by tenants, small settlers and small 
owner-cultivators have been lost to corporate farms. 
Many alienated peasants were absorbed as workers in 
the corporate farms. Others had simply nowhere to go. 
Some of these agribusiness corporations operating in 
Mindanao availing of the benefits under General Order 
No. 47 are the following: Tagum Agricultural Develop- 
ment Incorporated (TADECO), Davao Foods Corpora- 
tion, IHO Plantation Incorporated, NTC GUTHRIE 
Estates Incorporated, Sime Darby International Tire 
Company, Davao Agricultural Ventures under TADE- 
CO, San Miguel Corporation and Ayala Agricultural 
Development Corporation. And, lastly, he issued LOI 
No. 143 which exempts landowners who are members 
of tlie Armed Forces of the Philippines and other 
branches of the government from inclusion in Operation 
Land Transfer. 

It is my humble submission that if we include the 
words “priorities” and “and other conditions as 
Congress may prescribe,” we open tlie floodgates to 
more restrictions and limitations thereby seriously im- 
pairing the crucial provision in our Constitution on 
agrarian reform. Therefore, I humbly request that these 
words be deleted. 

Finally, because of these decrees and the conditions 
issued by Mr. Marcos, the effect according to one article 
was this, and I would like to quote it: 

The Marcos regime promoted the full commercialization 
of agriculture with unparalled vigor justifying such thrust in 
the name of seemingly pro-people programs such as land 
reform and agricultural modernization. Backed up by 
tremendous funding from the World Bank group, the pro- 
gram of modernization sometunes dubbed as rural mobiliza- 
tion turned out to be a mere vehicle for the unprecedented 
expansion of agri-business interest. 

Mindanao and Palawan were divided, salami style, into 
different plantations owned by agri-business transnationals 
and local corporate interests led by Marcos cronies such as 
Antonio Floirendo and Eduardo Cojuangco. 

In Luzon and in Visayas, the small farmers were gradual- 
ly trapped inside the huge agri-business net through the new 
seeds dependent on expensive agri-business inputs, the cor- 
porate-contract growing system and the so-called interplay 
of market forces. 

So, Madam President, on the basis of these manifesta- 
tions, I suggest that we delete the words “priorities” and 
other conditions as Congress may prescribe.” 


24 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


MR. RODRIGO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog- 
nized. 


responsive than we are. And so, I do not think that we 
should limit unnecessarily the discretion of our 
Congress in implementing this land reform. 

Thank you very much. 


MR. RODRIGO. May I say a few words against the 
proposed amendment? 

Honestly, I do not feel that we in this Constitutional 
Commission are better qualified or better equipped to 
decide on this matter and to go intolhe details of this 
land reform than the representatives and senators who 
will be elected by our people and who will compose 
the membership of our Congress. I think we are begin- 
ning to lose confidence in our officials who will be 
elected. We seem to suffer from paranoia because of 
what Marcos did. But, Madam President, Marcos was a 
dictator; he declared martial law. 

THE PRESIDENT. What is happening, Commissioner 
Rodrigo? 

MR. RODRIGO. There was a conversation going on 
beside that microphone and I could not concentrate. 
Madam President. It is all right. 


MR. BENGZON. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bengzon is recog- 
nized. 

MR. BENGZON. May the Committee now ask for 
a vote? 

THE PRESIDENT. What is the reaction of the Com- 
mittee first? 

MR. BENGZON. I believe the Committee will not 
accept the amendment. 

MR. TADEO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tadeo is recog- 
nized. 


^ thought Commissioner Rodri 
go s freedom to speak is being censored. 

bei^^b Madam President. I was jus 


the president. Please proceed. 

MR. RODRIGO. I need a little peace and quiet 
that I can concentrate. 

Madam President, we should not base our judgmc 
imripr Congress on what President Marcos ( 

ana hp ^ one-man legislatu 

frnino cronies because he thought he v 

^ dictator for life. But remember that 1 
members of our Congress wUl be elected by the peo 

sensitWp t^^th ’'®®^®^tion, and so they have to 

not think °wp ^ and feelings of the people. I 

into the deta i^'^^f *^'^^hfied than they are to 
into the details of this land reform nrogram I et us f 

It. We are appointive officials T^r cn 

will be elected from all o“r th^ PWrlT ' p 

in coconut lands I have nTknVri ''“'l 
lands. I am not acquainted'' ” Tgf 
tobacco-growtng regions; I have no knowledge of tl 
But the coming Congress will have representatives fn 
the coconut region, the sugar region, the tobacco-growi 
region and other regions, and they will know how 
act and they will be responsible to the people, m* 


MR. BENGZON. The Committee is divided that is 
why we will submit it to a vote. Madam President. 


MR. TADEO. Ang mga sinabi ni kasamang Rene 
Sarmiento ay wasto naman. Naging loopholes ang mga 
ito sa pagpapatupad mismo ng P.D. No. 27. Tungkol 
sa “subject to such priorities,” sa pananaw ng mag- 
bubukid, kung ito ay mananatili, ang ibig sabihin ay 
magsisimula ito doon sa sinasabi natin kanginang equity 
— iyong sobra at labis na lupain ay mapupunta roon sa 
maliliit na magbubukid, sa mga landless na sinasabi natin 
kangina. Totoong maselang umpisahan ang land reform 
program sa small landowner. Magkakaroon talaga 
tayo ng problema. Kaya ang ibig naming sabihin ay 
kung mananatili ang phrase na ito ay magsisimula tayo 
sa big tenanted landholdings, ill-gotten agricultural 
lands, tenanted agricultural lands, idle and/or aban- 
doned agricultural lands. 

Ang tanong kasi ni Commissioner Ople noong isang 
araw ay, “Jimmy, kung isang malaking plantasyon 
na ten hectares, paano ba ito?” Narito ngayon ang 
sagot. Uumpisahan natin sa malalawak at malalaking 
lupain, kasi nandoon talaga iyong tinatawag nating 
equity — magsisimula sa labis at sobra, ibibigay doon 
sa landless at hindi sa small landowner na sinasabi ni 
Commissioner Nolledo. Ito iyong sa huling bahagi na 
sinabi ko noon pa, regardless of crops. Pero dapat 
i-delete iyong other conditions, dahil magkakaroon 
dito ng napakalaking loopholes. 

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President. 


C '£02 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


25 



THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog- 
nized. 

BISHOP BACANI. I move that we vote on the 
amendment individually. I think Commissioner Tadeo 
has a very good point. I may want to keep that phrase 
“subject to sucli priorities” because he has advocated 
that in the Committee for a long time. I think that that 
will make for a very reasonable land reform and the 
other one may be an onerous provision — “and other 
conditions as Congress may prescribe.” And so, I 
would not want to have a wholesale vote on the two of 
them. 


BISHOP BACANI. I have a motion that they be 
taken and voted on separately because that will not 
prejudice anybody. 

THE PRESIDENT. We have the proposed amendment 
of Commissioner Sarmiento and that would depend 
on him. He was the one who made this amendment. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, following the 
Chair’s instruction and manifestation, may I move that 
we first vote on the deletion of the word “priorities”? 

THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say? 


MR. TADEO. Madam President, pabor ako; kaisa 
ako sa mungkahi ni Commissioner Sarmiento. 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, may I suggest that we 
preserve the words “retention limits.” 

MR. SARMIENTO. That phrase is preserved. Madam 
President. 

MR. OPLE. Yes, but I also would move for the dele- 
tion of “other conditions.” May I visualize for the 
body the situation that will transpire in the future 
Congress? 

Most of those who will be elected by legislative dis- 
tricts will represent landed interests, and they will focus 
on these other conditions to legitimize all manner of 
circumventing the heart and the spirit of Section 5. I 
support Commissioner Tadeo in his position that the 
words “other conditions” would mean providing in 
advance a weapon for future adversaries of Section 5 
the Congress in order to circumvent the entire 
Section 5. 

SR. TAN. Madam President. 


MS. NIEVA. Yes. I think we should take this up 
because when we discussed these priorities in the 
meeting, we have agreed that we would first concentrate 
on the big landholdings and that there would be a 
timetable; and only then would we gradually go down 
to the smaller landholdings. That is what we meant by 
“priorities.” So, we are willing to put this to a vote. 

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, if my memory 
serves me right. Commissioner Tadeo was the main 
proponent of this. 

MR. TADEO. PagUlinaw, Madam President. Ang una 
kong option dito ay ang deletion of “priorities” and 
“other conditions.” Ang point ko lang ay kung mana- 
natili pa rin ito, ang ibig sabihin ng priorities ay iyong 
ipinaliwanag ko kanina. Pero ang una kong option dito 
ay to delete “priorities” para maiwasan na ang prob- 
lema. 

MR. PADILLA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Padilla is recog- 
nized. 


the PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tan is recognized. 

I am not referring to 

^ t ^ referring to ourselves. 

Since we started this agrarian reform, I get the im- 
pression that we are cutting more and more the rights 
of the farmers. First, we removed “basic,” so it was 
only right , then, we added “retention rights”; then, 
we just and progressive system”; we just 

have just with the understanding that there is prior 
payment, now we have “and other conditions as 
Congress may prescribe.” So, I feel at this moment 
that this land reform is for the benefit of the middlemen 
or the middle class or the elite class. So, I am pleading 
that at least that phrase “other conditions” be deleted. 

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President. 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog- 
nized. 


MR. PADILLA. I object to eliminating the very 
important phrase “as Congress may prescribe.” 

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, we will be 
voting on the first issue, the elimination of the word 
“priorities.” Thereafter, we will vote on the deletion 
of the words “other conditions.” 

the PRESIDENT. Yes, but Commissioner Sar- 
miento’s amendment includes the deletion of “as 
Congress may prescribe.” 

MR. SARMIENTO. No, Madam President. My amend- 
ment is the deletion of “such priorities” and “and other 
conditions. So, it will read: “subject to reasonable 
retention limits as Congress may prescribe, taking 
into account ecological, developmental or equity 
considerations and subject to a just compensation.” 

May I just inform the body, Madam President, that 
Article XIII, Section 12 of the 1973 Constitution does 



26 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


not even contain qualifications and limitations. It 
simply states: 

The State shall formulate and implement an agrarian 
reform program aimed at emancipating the tenant from the 
bondage of the soil and achieving the goals enunciated in 
this Constitution. 

What we have is a list of restrictions and limitations 
under this new Constitution, Madam President. 

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 


with coconut and sugar. There are so many questions 
that will have to be resolved by technical studies so that 
we can establish priorities. So, this is not only a ques- 
tion of big versus small landholders but we are con- 
cerned with the various crops planted on these lands. 
Since we are interested with all crops, we cannot im- 
plement the land reform simultaneously; we will have 
to set priorities. That is why, 1 think, the expression 
“subject to such priorities” would be very much needed 
in order that Congress will know that we are cognizant 
of the fact that there are priorities even as far as crops 
are concerned. 

FR. BERNAS. Madam President. 


MR. DAVIDE. I understand that the Committee’s 
interpretation of “other priorities” would refer to the 
prioritization of the application. So, it should start 
first with the big landed estates and then those who 
would be affected later will be the small landowners. 
To me, that is a very sensible limitation, because if 
we do not establish the basis for a priority. Congress 
may also adopt the reversed system; start first with the 
small landowners because they are not represented in 
Congress. So, we will have Congress attending only to 
the vested interests of the big landowners. The small 
landowners will be victimized now by an act of Congress 
which IS controlled by a group with a vested interest. 


Insofar as the Article referred to by Commissioner 
armiento is concerned, that was even dangerous, 
oecause It was a mere declaration of a principle that the 
■ ^ an agrarian reform program, and that 

IS he reason why President Marcos abused that 
particular declaration of principle. Now, we are man- 
atmg Congress to especially provide for an agrarian 
retoim program in order that the landless will now 
e the owner of the property they are tilling, and 
necessarily we have to take into account also the 
developmental and ecological objectives of the State 
ecause of necessity to balance interests. We are 
rath Congress the parameters in the imposition 
rather than in the exercise of a duty to pursue the 
objectives of land reform. 


So, I would 
words. 


object to the proposal to delete these 


THE PRESIDENT. Let us hear first Commissioner 
Bemas. 

FR. BERNAS. Madam President, I quite realize that 
there may be a need to establish priorities, but if for the 
understanding of the meaning of priorities we always 
have to go to the debates of the Constitutional Con- 
vention, then that is a difficult situation. In constitu- 
tional construction, the first rule is that one looks at 
the meaning of the word, and it is only secondarily 
that one goes to the record. As it is now, with this 
enumeration of so many things, it would seem that 
we are constricting the power of Congress to push land 
reform rather than strengthening it. Anyway, we have 
the clause “as Congress may prescribe.” Moreover, 
it says; “taking into account ecological, developmental 
or equity considerations and subject to a just com- 
pensation.” All of these are merely a repetition of the 
fact that Congress after all has plenary powers as far 
as legislation is concerned. Congress can exercise and 
restrict. So, I disagree with those who may say that, in 
effect, we are preempting the right of Congress to 
establish priorities. Rather, what I say is that we must 
avoid the impression that we are really almost un- 
willingly recognizing the power of Congress to under- 
take a land reform program — that impression jumps 
out from the text when one looks at the enumeration 
of all those limitations on the power of Congress. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, will the Gentle- 
man please yield to some questions? 


MR. VILLEGAS. Madam President, 
niz™ Commissioner Villegas is recog- 


FR. BERNAS. Very willingly, Madam President. 

the PRESIDENT. Commissioner NoUedo is recog- 
nized. 


MR. VILLEGAS. Could I also add some areumer 
support of Commissioner Davide’s wanttofto r 
the word pnonties ? ® 


As already emphasized by Commissioner Rodrigo, 
this body is not technically competent to determine’ 
for example, whether or not we should first complete 
the rice and, com land reform program and then start 


MR. NOLLEDO. I would like to give emphasis to 
the words “may prescribe.” Would the Gentleman 
agree with me that if I say “subject to such priorities, 
reasonable retention limits and other conditions as 
Congress may prescribe,” we are giving Congress a 
discretion to set forth priorities? The words “may 
prescribe” would mean that Congress may not pres- 
cribe priorities after all? 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


27 


FR. BERNAS. It is possible that in the judgment 
of Congress, what it considers priority may be to set 
priorities. 

MR. NOLLEDO. The Gentleman is aware that the 
Ministry of Agrarian Refonn, as announced in today’s 
papers or yesterday’s papers, is also observing some 
sort of priorities in the sense that they would like to 
complete the rice and com land reform program before 
going to coconut or sugar land because we do not have 
the necessary funding to finance the entire land reform 
program. 

FR. BERNAS. The point is, I am not denying the 
right of Congress to set priorities. All I am saying is 
that by enumerating all these, we give the impression 
that we are trying to constrict the power of Congress. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Based on the explanation of Com- 
missioner Tadeo, we are not constricting the power of 
Congress because Congress may begm first with the 
big landholdings and later on with medium-sized land- 
holdings, and perhaps later on with small landholdings 
unless they are exempt by Congress. 

FR. BERNAS. But as I understand Commissioner 
Tadeo, he sees the difficulty now and, as a matter of 
fact, he is willing to eliminate “priorities.” 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, that was his first choice. But 
later he said that his second choice, based on his inter- 
pretation is that the word “priorities” may exist here 
after all. I think Commissioner Bernas would like to 
eliminate the word “prioiities” because of the words; 
“taking into account ecological, developmental or 
equity considerations” which will take the place of 
“priorities.” 

FR. BERNAS. Correct, Madam President. That is 
a sufficient guideline for Congress. 

MR. NOLLEDO Would that guideline be less em- 
phatic than the word “priorities”? 

FR. bernas. When Congress takes into con- 
sidera ion eco ogical, developmental or equity con- 
siderations, in fact, it will be setting the priorities. 

MR- NOLLEDO. The word “priorities” is more em- 
phatic. Why do we not place it there? 

FR. BERNAS. It is excess verbiage; it gives the 
impression that we are more interested in limiting 
Congress than in pushing Congress towards land reform. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I do not think so. Madam President, 
because of the words “may prescribe.” In fact, we are 
giving flexibility to Congress, considering, as stated by 
Commissioner Rodrigo, that we do not enjoy the man- 


date of the people. We are merely appointed. Why do 
we not let Congress, whose elective members enjoy 
the mandate of the people, determine the set of 
priorities? 

FR. BERNAS. I am not denying that at aU. I think. 
Madam President, we have sufficiently discussed this. 
It is a question of perceptions; we submit it to a vote. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Tliank you, Madam President. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, the issue has been 
amply debated. I move that we vote on this particular 
amendment. 

THE PRESIDENT. Tlie body will vote on the dele- 
tion of the words “such priorities.” Is that correct. 
Commissioner Sarmiento? 

MR. SARMIENTO. Yes, Madam President. 


VOTING 

THE PRESIDENT. That is what we will do. 

As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment 
of Commissioner Sarmiento to delete the words “such 
priorities” from the second sentence of Section 5, 
please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their 
hand.) 

As many as are against, please raise their hand. 
(Several Members raised their hand.) 

The results show 14 votes in favor and 20 against; 
the amendment is lost. 

What is the other amendment? 

MR. SARMIENTO. My second amendment, Madam 
President, is the deletion of the words “and other 
conditions.” 

VOTING 

THE PRESIDENT. As many as are in favor of the 
deletion of the clause “and other conditions,” also on 
the second sentence of Section 5, please raise then- 
hand. (Several Members raised their hand.) 

As many as are against, please raise their hand 
(Few Members raised their hand.) 

The results show 20 votes in favor and 15 against; 
the amendment is approved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there is still one 
proponent of an amendment to Section 5 . 

May I ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be 
recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid 
is recognized. 


28 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Madam President, I have an 
amendment by addition on the second sentence of 
Section 5. Between “encourage” and “and,” insert 
the phrase VOLUNTARY LAND SHARING. May 
I please give the background of my amendment? 

I think we are all convinced that the government 
should take the prime responsibility in agrarian reform 
and that we should put more teeth in the imple- 
mentation of the program so that we can redress present 
imbalances and inequities. But 10 years from now, we 
would like the government to assume a lesser role. We 
would like to see more initiative from the people. We 
would like to encourage efforts hke what is happenmg 
in Negros in terms of voluntary land sharing. We would 
like to be able to help reorient the middle class, the 
landlords, the employers so that we can change adver- 
sary or confrontational strategies to cooperative and 
harmonious relationships. There are actually projects 
like human resource development programs, which 
bring together the landlords and the planters with the 
sacadas. In this dialogue, the spirit of cooperation and 
harmony is forged and, consequently, is voluntarily 
shared. We would like to see the Ministry of Agrarian 
Reform move towards creating a climate where private 
initiative could thrive. And so, I would request the 
Committee to consider including an amendment on 
voluntary land sharing. After all, in the labor sector, 
Aey agreed on voluntary modes of settling disputes! 
This would encourage government and other non- 
government organizations to move towards this 
direction. 

Thank you. Madam President. 

the president. May we have the proposed 

amendment? 

“ ROSARIO BRAID. Between “encourage” and 
and, insert VOLUNTARY LAND SHARING. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is that a new sentence? 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. No, it is in the second 
sentence which will then read; “To this end, the State 
shall encourage VOLUNTARY LAND SHARING 
and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural 
lands . . .” 

MS. NIEVA. Does not Commissioner Rosario Braid 
think that that is included in the phrase “the State 
shall encourage”? By encouraging, would that not 
necessarily include voluntary and all modes of land 
distribution? 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. It might be. Madam 
President, but it does not provide a mandatory’ direction 
that would move towards this direction. Actually, I 
see voluntary land sharing as the wave of the future 
in land reform. 


MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, will the Com- 
missioner please agree to an amendment? 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Certainly. 

MR. NOLLEDO. If we adopt Commissioner Ro- 
sario Braid’s amendment now, it might result in a 
nebulous provision. Would she agree with me if we 
make it as the last sentence of Section 5: THE STATE 
SHALL FOSTER VOLUNTARY LAND SHARING? 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. It is all right. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Instead of putting it there, we 
should place it at the end of Section 5 because in the 
amendment, we cannot begin: “To this end, the State 
shall encourage. . .” I think the sentence, as alrea^ 
amended, will be adversely affected if we put “VOLU 
TARY LAND SHARING,” because it might create 
the impression that what the State fosters is 
voluntary land sharing, which is not the case, 

ever, we can supplement the provision by stating- „ 
STATE SHALL FOSTER VOLUNTARY LA 
SHARING as the last sentence of Section 5. 
my amendment to the amendment. 

th ^ 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Accepted, as long as 
concept is there. 

f* 

MR. NOLLEDO. I ask that the 
Committee please consider seriously the ^ . fjj-st 
of Commissioner Rosario Braid, corn- 

provision excluding her amendment will ^^^*^^^jggjoner 
pulsory land distribution while that of Co gj^aring- 
Rosario Braid encourages only voluntary 1^*^ ^dholder 
That is without State intervention. Any ^ perhaps 
may adopt a voluntary land sharing pfogt^ ’ 
with the support of the State. 

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DAVIDE. Would the proponent yield to some 
questions? 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Certainly. 

MR. DAVIDE. By voluntary land sharing, would it 
also encompass the right of the landowners to share 
their landholdings? 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Certainly. 

MR. DAVIDE. If that is so, would it not defeat the 
objective of land reform, because if they now volunta- 
rily share their landholdings, it could be beyond the 
reach of land reform? 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


29 


MS. ROSARIO BRAID. No, not necessarily; it can be 
a complementary program. 

MR. DAVIDE. It could be, but tliat is also a right 
conceded to the landowners. So, how can we remove 
from them what they have already obtained by reason 
of an exercise of a right? So, if we now allow land 
sharing among landowners, it will remove the right to 
implement the land reform over these land areas which 
are subject of the land sharing. 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. I think the future legislature 
could come up with provisions that would specify the 
size of land that could fall under voluntary land sharing 
and other specifics. The concept is to ensure that this is 
also taken up as complementai-y program. 

MR. DAVIDE. 1 would have no objection if the land 
sharing will be by the farmers and the farm workers, 
because that would amount to collective ownership. 
But, if it would apply even to the landowners whose 
lands may be the subject of land reform, then that 
might be dangerous. We give it as an option to the farm 
workers and the farmers, but not to the landowners. 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. I think it could be stated as 
an option, and we should encourage it as long as it 
would not prejudice the existing land reform program. 

MR. DAVIDE. Yes, as an option to the beneficiaries, 
but not to the original landowners. I would agree with 
the proponent because it would really encourage the 
establishment of cooperatives or partnerships among 
the beneficiaries. 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Yes. 

MR. DAVIDE. But not in favor of the original land- 
owners. 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Could we work on an amend- 
ment that would capture the spirit of what Commission- 
er Davide said? 

MR. DAVIDE. If it would be an option to be granted 
to the beneficiaries, I think the word COLLECTIVELY 
would already embody the concept. They are entitled 
to own singly or directly, on the one hand, or collec- 
tively on the other. That would already include land 
sharing. That is my own perception. I do not know the 
position of the Committee on the matter. 

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, could I just ask a 
few questions from the proponent? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Quesada is recog- 
nized. 

MS. QUESADA. The proponent said that the basis 
for this proposal was the experiment that her organiza- 


tion tried out in Negros. Could she just enhghten the 
Committee on the background of such a proposal which 
has served as tlie basis for this amendment on land 
sharing? 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. It has emerged out of a dire 
need in the province of Negros. As a matter of fact, it is 
perhaps the most imaginative and most successful pro- 
gram now. They have Ed Locsin of Chito Foundation 
and his colleagues and these programs are supported by 
the Farmers’ Human Resource Development Programs 
of Mrs. Magsaysay and others. This experiment is 
spreading in tlie region and has proven worthy of 
replication. It has been evaluated in many reports. 
Among the benefits is ^ the establishment of a more 
cooperative, harmonious environment. Having the land- 
lord and the worker together reduces confrontational 
and adversarial relations. It is a complementary strategy 
to the traditional land reform program. 

MS. QUESADA. Does tire proponent emdsion the 
government to come in to this kind of an arrangement? 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Yes, by creating the cUmate. 
Tliey have a number of programs, primarily, training 
and research programs. Some of the resources could 
support the replication of tliese projects throughout 
the country. So, instead of using the resources in just 
supporting the traditional land reform programs, they 
can develop the pilot communities throughout the 
country. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, the amendment has 
been clearly explained by the proponent and I think 
it is time to vote on that amendment. 

SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

THE PRESIDENT. We will give the Committee a few 
minutes to deliberate on this. 

The session is suspended for a few minutes. 

It was 3:33 p.m. 

RESUMPTION OF SESSION 

At 3:35 p.m., the session was resumed. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, the Committee has 
decided to put to a vote the amendment of Commis- 
sioner Rosario Braid. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may we please 
explain our position. 

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, let us hear first the Commit- 
tee. 


30 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


MR. MONSOD. Madam President, when the Commit- 
tee drafted this section, we put the word “encourage” 
precisely not to preclude voluntary modes of just dis- 
tribution. However, the section is very clear, that the 
coverage is all agricultural lands. 

I think the proposal of Commissioners Rosario Braid 
and Nolledo is not precluded by the word “encourage” 
because it is possible, in order to encourage, that the 
government will give incentives to accelerate the 
program in its system of priorities. So, I do not think 
that that is precluded, and it is unnecessary. 

•So, the Committee feels that it cannot accept the 
amendment because it might confuse or it might open 
the section to a different interpretation, and we want to 
establish the coverage to all agricultural lands. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, may I answer 
very briefly? 

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, Commissioner Nolledo. 


MR. NOLLEDO. The proposed amendment of Com- 
missioner Rosario Braid is designed to really accelerate 
land reform program with respect to those who would 
like to comply voluntarily with it, expecting that they 
will be given incentives by the government. 


We have amended the amendment already, Madar 
resi ent. Landowners who are willing to adopt volur 
Th” ^ afraid of paying capital gain 

rnmni ^ Tu ^ Christian brotherhood, t' 

P y with the land reform program of the goverr 
men , even disregarding priorities that may be set fort 
y ongress. But they like the government to give ther 
incen ives, like exemption from capital gains tax. 


And so. Commissioner Rosario Braid may read the 
proposed amendment as amended. 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid is 
recognized. 


The results show 16 votes in favor and 14 against; tlic 
amendment is approved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, for a one-word 
amendment, I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recog- 
nized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Jamir is recog- 
nized. 

MR. JAMIR. Madam President, my amendment is 
with respect to the second sentence; insert tlic woid 
ARABLE between “all” and “agricultural.” 


THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Jamir please 
explain? 


MR. JAMIR. Yes, Madam President. I propose to 
insert the word ARABLE to distinguish this km o 
agricultural land from such lands as commercia an 
industrial lands and residential properties hecause a 
of them fall under the general classification o 
cultural.” And since the intention of the Comnii 
apparently, is to limit the application of the 
“agricultural” here to land subject to cultivation a 
adding the word ARABLE. 


MR. SUAREZ. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recog 
nized. 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. Madam President. 

The words “agricultural lands” have already 
defined repeatedly, that they are no't suppose 
include commercial and industrial lands. But 
contemplation of the Committee in its definition wo 
be limited to arable and suitable agricultural lands. 


MS. ROSARIO BRAID. If the Committee will allc 
^^^"dment, it wUl be; THE COVER 
INCENTIVES TO THOJ 
WHO ADOPT VOLUNTARY LAND SHARING. S 

this will be the last sentence. 


MR. JAMIR. So it is clear that “agricultural lands o 
not include commercial, industrial and resideiitia 
lands. 

MR. SUAREZ. The Commissioner is correct. 


VOTING 


THE PRESIDENT. This has been sufficiently d 

the suspensic 

of the session. So, they are ready to vote 


As many as are m favor of the proposed amendment 
of Commtssioner Rosario Braid to add a sentence to 
Section 5 which she has just stated, please raise their 
hand. (Several Members raised their hand.) 


As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few 
Members raised their hand.) 


MR. JAMIR. With that explanation, I voluntarily 
withdraw my amendment. Madam President. 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. In consequence of the amendment of 
Commissioner Sarmiento, there is a necessary one-word 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


31 


addition to this Section 5. May we call on Commissioner 
Sarmiento, Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. What happened to the Jamir 
amendment? 

MR. RAMA. It was withdrawn because of the ex- 
planation of the Committee. 

THE PRESIDENT. All right. 

MR. PADILLA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, the Vice-President is recog- 
nized. 

MR. PADILLA. With regard to the proposed amend- 
ment of Commissioner Jamir and the explanation of 
Commissioner Suarez, I would like to state that public 
lands are broadly classified into timberlands and agri- 
cultural and mineral lands. 

But under the term agricultural lands, there are 
subdivisions, as mentioned by Commissioner Jamfr, 
which may include residential, commercial and indus- 
trial lands. So to make it clear, especially because there 
is the word “all” to “agricultural lands,” I think that the 
proposed amendment of putting “ARABLE” - and 
Commissioner Suarez even added, “AND SUITABLE”— 
would be acceptable. Tliat while it says, “all agricultural 
lands,” it is limited to agricultural lands that are open to 
farming or agricultural cultivation, etc. 

So with the permission of Commissioner Jamir, I 
would propose that we adopt, subject to what the Com- 
mittee feels, the insertion of the word “ARABLE” be- 
cause the word “all” was not deleted. So, in my 
opinion, we can either eliminate “all” and just say 
“agricultural lands,” or if the word “all” is retained, 
insert the word “ARABLE.” 

What does the Committee say? 

MR. REGALADO. Madam President. 

the president. Commissioner Regalado is recog- 
nized. 

MR. REGALADO. Just in support of what Com- 
missioner Padilla has stated and for symmetry and 
uniformity of both expression and intendment, we may 
take into account the provisions of Section 7 with 
respect to lands of the public domain which also specif- 
ically state “suitable to agriculture.” So I think the same 
intent also applies to private lands. 

Therefore, aside from the possibility of using the 
word “arable,” we can say DISTRIBUTION OF ALL 
LANDS SUITABLE TO AGRICULTURE just to make 
it jibe with the same phraseology in Section 7. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is that acceptable to Com- 
missioner Padilla? 


MR. OPLE. Madam President. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Let us "get the reaction first of 
Commissioner Padilla on the proposed amendment. 

MR. PADILLA. I have no objection to the proposal 
of Commissioner Regalado because it expresses the same 
substance. 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, will Commissioner 
Padilla yield? 

THE PRESIDENT. Let us hear Commissioner Ben- 
nagen first, as member of the Committee. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Thank you. Madam President. 

There is a distinction in the use of “agriculture” in 
Section 7 and its use in Section 5. The reference to the 
use of “suitable to agriculture” in Section 7 has some- 
thing to do with other natural resources including lands 
of the public domain, whereas in Section 5, the refer- 
ence is clear, that it is to “agricultural lands.” In any 
case, we have three criteria which have to be taken into 
account in all those proceedings; ecological, develop- 
mental and equity considerations. I think those should 
be taken into account. 

Thank you. Madam President. 

0 

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recog- 
nized. 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. Madam President. 

May I just quote for the benefit of the Com- 
missioners, the Ministry of Agrarian Reform survey 
report of May 1986, defining the meaning of agricul- 
tural lands for land reform purposes: 

Agricultural lands mean lands devoted to any growth, 
including but not limited to, crop lands, salt beds, fish- 
ponds, idle lands and abandoned lands. They include all 
arable public and private lands, regardless of crop, size of 
landholding and tenurial arrangement. 

I hope that will satisfy the observations of Commissioner 
Padilla. 

MR. PADILLA. Precisely the Commissioner’s defini- 
tion or that definition uses the word “arable.” So we are 
just adopting that word. 

MR. SUAREZ. No. That is why it is already included 
in the words “agricultural lands,” Madam President. 

MR. PADILLA. No. 

MR. SUAREZ. I am referring to the word “arable.” 


32 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


MR. PADILLA. No, it is not included because the 
term “agricultural lands” is very broad. Agricultural 
lands are only distinguished from timberlands and 
mineral lands. All other lands are agricultural but 
definitely not all agricultural lands are arable. 

MR. SUAREZ. The problem is, if we define it with 
the word “arable,” it might exclude the possibility of 
setting up, for example, a salt bed, a fishpond, which 
may not, strictly speaking, be fit for cultivation or may 
not be arable. That is the fear of the Commiteee, so we 
would rather that this be broadened by just saymg 
“all agricultural lands,” which would necessarily include 
even salt beds and fishponds. 

MR. PADILLA. In that case, if the Commissioner 
feels that arable” does not cover everything that 
should be covered by agricultural lands, except those 
mentioned as residential, commercial and industrial, 
then we just say “agricultural lands” without using the 
word “all.” 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized. 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, my concern is about 
the more or less 600,000 kaingineros all over the coun- 
We all know there is a program of the Ministry of 
atural Resources granting stewardship contracts to 
ese ainpneros that later on can mature into owner- 
s ip, so t at they stop burning our forests, destroying 
ur watersheds and causing calamities on the lowlands, 
^ through floods. Will this definition of “arable 
thp ^ from the purview of agrarian reform 

ir. '^nd-bum farmers of whom we have, accord- 

ing to the NEDA, no fewer than 600,000 right now? 

MR. PADILLA. Madam President, some of these 
aingineros bum trees within timberlands or forest 
an s, an these are illegal acts. It is worse if they cut 
rees ecause that has given rise to many adverse 
~ erosion of soil, floods and others. So if 
timberlands and not classified as agricultural 
nr private grants hke homestead, lease, 

T KpUp methods recognized by the Public Land Law, 

Still, or should remain as, 
trppc ^berlands. The trouble is that when the 
fnr!L soil, the lands within the 

Rut 1 hpp ^ P^^nting agricultural crops 

lands are ^nn^i ^^riions of the forests or timber- 

Dublic forestlands, then by 

the one hanH a ^ Forest Development or 

should agree to^ de i ^ Lands, on the other 

already avaUable to fepotitiofto f ' 

purposes of agriculture. S‘be"toe S”, ^^ruere :i 

1 H difference between minera 

lands, timberlands and agricultural lands. 


MR. OPLE. May I ask the Committee, therefore, 
what Its position is - whether under this definition of 


“arable lands” and “all agricultural lands” proposed to 
be distributed under Section 5, that the riglit of the 
kaingineros to their own piece of land already released 
by the Bureau of Forest Development will not be pre- 
judiced in the light of this agrarian refonn program that 
is before the Commission? 

MR. BENNAGEN. Ang mga kaingineros ay dapat 
kasali sa mga beneficiaries of agrarian reform, pero 
iyong bahagi ng gubat na kanilang tinatamnan, dahil sa 
kawalan ng patag na kanilang matatamnan, ay hiiuli 
kasali sa agrarian reform. Ito ay sa dahilang by defini- 
tion, according to existing laws, pag lampas na sa 18 
percent degrees slope, hindi na kasama sa agricultural 
land kundi sa forest. Kaya mahalagang may distinction 
iyong kaingincro mismo at ang kanilang lupang tina- 
tamnan. 

MR. OPLE. Does the Commissioner mean that above 
an 18 percent degrees slope, this is no longer covered by 
agrarian reform? 

MR. BENNAGEN. No, kasi hindi pa iyon A and D. It 
is' not classified as alienable and disposable. It belongs to 
the classification of forest land. 

MR. OPLE. I hope that the Commissioner’s interpre- 
tation is correct. But I can assure him right now that 
there are millions of hectares in the Philippines above an 
18 percent degrees slope and are considered eminent y 
cultivable. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes, that is right. As a matter of 
fact, there was a big debate on the issue of 1 8 percen , 
because 18 percent considers only the slope and not le 
other variables that have to do with productivity. 

MR. OPLE. The Committee on the Executive, there- 
fore, should keep an open mind about this limit, 
because I think it might just succeed in excluding 
hundreds of thousands of hectares from agrarian reform. 

MR. BENNAGEN. No. I am merely referring to the 
1 8 percent in relation to this concept which is being 
subjected to debate, partly in relation to ancestral lands 
and partly in relation to the other variable, such as 
factors of productivity that have to be taken into 
consideration, not only the slope. 

MR. OPLE. Thank you. Madam President. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Com- 
missioner Concepcion be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Concepcion is 
recognized. 

MR. CONCEPCION. Thank you. Madam President. 

The term “agricultural land” as found in other 
provisions of the Constitution, particularly those refer- 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


33 


ring to the conservation of natural resources and public 
utilities, apparently partakes a different meaning when 
used in connection with land refonn. For purposes of 
consistency and uniformity, therefore, I believe the use 
of the tenn “agricultural lands” as applied in this 
particular provision should be made to connote the 
same meaning when applied to other provisions in the 
Constitution . . . the same policy as observed in the use 
of the term “just compensation.” 

Under these provisions on conservation of natural 
resources, all lands which are neither timberlands nor 
mineral lands fall under the category of agricultural 
land. The reason, according to the authorities, is that 
lands are per se agricultural. However, in view of the 
wealth in mineral deposits as may be found in parti- 
cular areas, these areas, although rich in agriculture, may 
be classified as mineral lands as determined by the 
national government. 

For similar reasons, forest lands are classified as 
timberlands, although they have no forests but, by 
reason of topography, they are suitable watersheds. 
These areas rich in agriculture are, however, not con- 
sidered as agricultural lands but are classified as timber- 
lands. Ironically, some of these timberlands are now 
denuded. 

It is all right to have different categories of agricul- 
tural lands, but these categories of agricultural lands 
under land reform were not found under the old Consti- 
tution. Hence, the use of the term under land reform 
would have a different meaning when referring to the 
provisions on the conservation of natural resources, or 
vice versa. It would create a great confusion if the term 
“agricultural lands” were to connote a different 
meaning when used in different provisions of the 

Constitution. 

Thank you. Madam President. 


Now, in the committee report on the Article on the 
National Economy and Patrimony, we recommended 
that we go back to the 1935 classification, as suggested 
by Commissioner Concepcion, so that we just have 
three — mineral, timber and agricultural — and then we 
add a fourth one, national parks, which is the innova- 
tion of tliis Constitution after a lot of public hearings 
where we got this recommendation. We will discuss this 
at the opportune time. So we are suggesting four classifi- 
cations now, tlie tliree tliat appeared in the 1935 
Constitution plus national parks. 

I agree that it may not be necessary to add the word 
‘^ARABLE” because I think tliere is already a juris- 
prudential definition of “agricultural.” And since this is 
something that is subject more to further determination 
of the legislature because, as already mentioned by 
Commissioner Bennagen, there are all sorts of techno- 
logical changes that may render certain types of steep 
mountains arable in the future. And as this body pro- 
bably knows, there are a lot of industrial tree plantations 
that are much more agricultural really than timberland. 
There ^e a lot of fast-growing trees that are being 
grown in the same way as we grow sugar cane so the 
distinction between timberland and agricultural land is 
becoming thinner and thinner. That is why in the com- 
mittee report on the Article on the National Economy 
and Patrimony, we are recommending a new provision 
that the legislature or Congress should fix the definition 
of forest lands which should not be diminished there- 
after, but the fixing would be subject to a lot of studies 
because Congress would have to get experts to deter- 
mine exactly what is timberland and what is agricultural 
land. 

Thank you. Madam President. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, the proponent of the 
amendment insists on a vote on his amendment. 


MR. RAMA. Madam President, for a final comme 
the same Padilla amendment, I ask that To 
Villftpas be reco?ni7pH 


qXI tne A cuiiciiuia 

niissioner Villegas be recognized. 


THE PRESIDENT. It is Commissioner Padilla now 
because Commissioner Jamir withdrew his amendment. 
How does Commissioner Padilla’s amendment read? 


the president. Commissioner Villegas is recog- MR. PADILLA. Delete the word “all” so that the line 
nized. would read “just distribution of agricultural lands.” 


MR. VILLEGAS. Madam Pr^cin 

formation to anticipate reallv on ’ some in- 
‘ X irn tViA M * , discussion on the 

^ticle on t e National Economy and Patrimony, 

because er are a lot of relevant data on the specific 
classification ot natural resources: 


If we will rernember, in the 1973 Constitution, lands 
were classified into too many categories and this gave 
the Marcos regime tremendous elbow room in actually 
reclassifying lands, especially for the benefit of the 
Ministry of Human Settlements. If we will remember 
also, that regime reclassified lands into agricultural, 
industrial or commercial, residential, resettlement, 
mineral, timber or forest, and grazing lands. 


the president. Do we have 
Committee? 


any reaction from the 


MS. NIEVA. Madam President, we do not accept the 
amendment. 


VOTING 


ini: rrvnaiutJNl. The Committee does not accep 
the amendment. So let us proceed to vote then. 


Those m favor of deleting the word “all” before the 
word agncultural” will please raise their hand. (Few 
Members raised their hand.) 


34 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


Those against will please raise their hand. (Several 
Members raised their hand.) 

The results show 7 votes in favor and 26 against; the 
amendment is lost. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Ipinakikiusap lamang sa aming 
mga bisita dito sa session hall na huwag pumalakpak o 
gumawa ng anumang reaksyon kung may botohan o 
talakayan dito sa Komisyon. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, before we move over 
to the next section, 1 ask that Commissioner Sarmiento 
be recognized for a perfecting amendment. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Sarmiento is recog- 
nized. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, I move for the 
insertion of the word AND between “priorities” and 

reasonable.” The reason for this is the consequence of 
our decision to delete the words “and other conditions.” 

THE PRESIDENT. So the phrase reads “such priori- 
ties AND reasonable.” 

Is this accepted by the Committee? 

MS. NIEVA. Yes, Madam President, we accept it. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Thank you. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this pro- 
posed amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the 
amendment is approved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Com- 
missioner Davide be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you, Madam President. 

On Section 6, we notice the incorporation of the 
words “research and development” as an amendment to 
the original proposal. I am for its deletion because re- 
search and development, if development is related to 
research, would already be included in the word “tech- 
nology.” 

MR. BENGZON. Is Commissioner Davide talking of 
Section 6? 

MR. DAVIDE. Section 6, page 2. 

MR. BENGZON. Can we vote on Section 5 first? 

Madam President, we have not voted on the whole of 
Section 5. If there are no more amendments to Section 


5, we request that the body vote on the whole section, 
as amended. 

MR. TADEO. Madam President, 1 seek clarification 
on this very crucial part of Section 5. Ito pong “just 
compensation,” kung ang kahulugan nito ay hindi ang 
reasonable capacity of the farmer to pay under the right 
of preemption and right of redemption, 1 would like 
to cite the case of Valdez vs. Balmocena, CAGR No. 
01487-R, October 7, 1976. Dito po ay ipinaliwanag ang 
right of redemption, na kapag ibinenta ng panginoong 
may-ari ng lupa ang lupang sinasaka ng magbubukid sa 
iba, may karapatan ang magbubukid na maghabol at ang 
babayaran ng magbubukid ay hindi batay sa usapan ng 
vendee at ng panginoong may-ari ng lupa kundi batay sa 
reasonable capacity of the farmer to pay. Kung hindi po 
ito ang kahulugan ng “just compensation,” ay binabawi 
ko po ang boto ko. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Ang pagkaunawa natin dito sa 
“just compensation,” isinasaalang-alang dito ang kakaya- 
han ng magsasaka at kung hindi niya ito makakaya, dito 
papasok ang pamahalaan. Kaya, batay din ito sa afforda- 
ble cost na makakaya ng magbubukid o sa kanyang 
limitasyon. lyon ang pagkaunawa natin kanginang 
umaga. Maaari ring market value, kaya ang primary con- 
sideration ay ang kakayalian ng magsasaka. Kung ano 
ang hindi kaya ng magbubukid, dadagdagan ng pamaha- 
laan. That is our understanding. Kailangang just din ang 
kabayaran doon sa pagmumulan ng lupa. 

MR. TADEO. That is only a clarification. 

MR. BENGZON. Madam President, may we vote now 
on the whole section? 

MR. RODRIGO. May I request that the whole section 
be read? 

MS. NIEVA. Yes, may we read the whole section. 

THE PRESIDENT. Please read the whole section. 

BISHOP BACANI. Just a moment, Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog- 
nized. 

BISHOP BACANI. Do we understand that there has 
been an addition of meaning or a change of meaning 
which was explained this morning? I ask this because I 
think it was insisted that “just compensation” is the 
compensation paid to the landowner. 

MS. NIEVA. To the landowner. Yes. 

BISHOP BACANI. And that is the prime considera- 
tion there? 

MR. BENGZON. Yes. 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


35 


BISHOP BACANI. Whether it will then be subsidized 
by the government, 1 hope that that is not lost. 

MR. BENGZON. No, it is not lost. Madam President. 

MS. NIEVA. Section 5 now reads as follows: “The 
State shall by law undertake an agrarian reform pro- 
gram founded on the basic right of farmers and regular 
farm workers, who are landless, to own directly or 
collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other 
farm workers, receive a just share of the fruits thereof. 
To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake 
the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject 
to such priorities and reasonable retention hmits as 
Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, 
developmental or equity considerations and subject to 
the payment of just compensations. The State shall 
respect the rights of small landowners in determin- 
ing retention limits. The State shall further provide 
incentives for voluntary land-sharing.” 

MR. REGALADO. Madam President, just a clarifica- 
tion. Was there a comma after “farm workers” so that 
the phrase “who are landless” will refer to both regular 
farm workers and farmers? 

MS. NIEVA. Yes. I am sorry I did not mention the 
comma. 

MR. REGALADO. Thank you. 

THE PRESIDENT. Will the Chairman of the Commit- 
tee please read again the last two sentences. 

MS. NIEVA. The State shall respect the rights of 
small landowners in determining retention limits. The 
State shall further provide incentives for voluntary 

land-sharing.” 

VOTING 

THE PRESIDENT. Those in favor of this proposed 
amendment to Section 5, as read by the honorable 
Chairman, will please raise their hand. ( Several Members 
raised their hand.) 

Those against will please raise their hand. (No 
Member raised his hand.) 

The results show 36 votes in favor and none against; 
the amendment to Section 5 is approved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Com- 
missioner Davide be recognized to amend Section 6. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you, Madam President. 

The amendment on Section 6 would only be to delete 
the newly incorporated words “research and develop- 


ment” on the second from the last line, the reason being 
that this is already included in the word “technology.” 
We cannot have technology without research and its 
development. 

MR. BENNAGEN. How about deleting “and develop- 
ment” only? 

MR. DAVIDE. No, I propose to delete “research and 
development.” 

MR. BENNAGEN. Let me explain why I insist that 
“research” should be here. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen may 
proceed. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes, Madam President. 

In various studies on agrarian reform, it has been 
shown that many agricultural practices are location- 
specific; meaning, that agricultural practices in the 
United States, in China, or in India, are not necessarily 
transferable to Philippine conditions. And even within 
Philippine conditions, specifically because of the great 
variability of ecological conditions, one cannot easily 
generalize, and, therefore, it is necessary to have site- 
specific or location-specific research and development. I 
am willing to have “and development” be stricken off, 
but not “research.” 

MR. DAVIDE. I will agree, in view of the explana- 
tion. So, only the words “and development” should be 
stricken off. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes. 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Madam President, may I be 
recognized. This is an amendment to Commissioner 
Davide’s. 

MR. RAMA. I ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid 
be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid is 

recognized. 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. I am glad that “research” is 
retained, but I wonder if we could include TRAINING 
instead of “development” the deletion of which I 
accept, so that the phrase reads: “research and TRAIN- 
ING” because “training” is very important. 

Madam President, I beUeve that 
training is already included in “technology” because 
how can the government transfer technology to the 
farmers and the farm workers without the necessary 
training for said technology? So it is mherent in tech- 
nology. 


36 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


THE PRESIDENT. Is the Commissioner satisfied? MS. ROSARIO BRAID. It is accepted. 


MS. ROSARIO BRAID. I withdraw then with that THE PRESIDENT. How about the Committee? 
explanation. 

MS. NIEVA. If it is acceptable to Commissioner 
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any other comment? Rosario Braid, the Committee accepts. 


MS. NIEVA. We accept the amendment of Com- 
missioner Davide deleting the words “and develop- 
ment,” so the phrase reads: “appropriate technology 
and research.” 

THE PRESIDENT. Are we ready to vote now on the 
proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide which 
has been accepted by the Committee? 

Is there any objection to this proposed amendment? 
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is ap- 
proved. 


MR. RAMA. Madam President, for another amend- 
ment to the same section, I ask that Commissioner 
Rosario Braid be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid is 
recognized. 


MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Madam President, on th 
^ propose to delete “and marketing as 
substitute it with the words SUPPOR' 

rial n A adequate finar 

S SUPPORT SERVICES.” The reason i 

han;o f Other important services; namely, pos 

rliiH ^ ®^hnology and extension services. If we ir 
e marketmg, then we might as well include all th 
omer support services. Post harvest technology, if I ma 
xp am, includes storage, abattoirs and processir 
I ^ different from marketing sy 

nnri^’ delete “and marketing assistance 

na in lieu thereof, insert SUPPORT SERVICES aft( 
the word “production ” 


THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this 
proposed amendment of Commissioners Rosario Braid 
and Davide which has been accepted by the Commit- 
tee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment 
is approved. 

MR. RAMA. On the same section. Madam President, 
I ask that Commissioner Rigos be recognized. 

REV. RIGOS. Madam President, I propose a minor 
amendment in the first portion of the sentence which 
says: 

The State shall recognize the right of farmers and farm- 
workers, of cooperatives and other independent farmer s 

organization and land owners . . . 

by placing the word “landowners” immediately after 
“farm workers” so that we refer to people first — 
farmers, farm workers and landowners — then followed 
by cooperatives and organizations which are associa- 
tions. So we just put them together. 

MS. NIEVA. The Committee accepts. Madam Pres- 
ident. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? ( Silence) 
The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved. 

MR. RAMA. For the last amendment to Section 6, I 
ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 


me^f NIEVA. Madam President, we accept the amend- 

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 


MR. DAVIDE. This is a very minor amendment. 
Madam President. After the word “organization” on the 
third line, add S and transpose the apostrophe on 
“farmer’s” to after “s,” so it should be “farmers’ 
ORGANIZATIONS.” 

THE PRESIDENT. Does the Committee accept? 


Sa^ce” “and mark 

assistance and addmg what have been ctateH 

OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES. So! atr 
delete the word and and after “assistance ” ad 
following; AND OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES. 


THE PRESIDENT. Is that acceptable to Com- 
missioner Rosario Braid? 


MS. NIEVA. Yes, it is just a small spelling error, a 
perfecting amendment. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) 
The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved. 

MR. RAMA. There are no more proponents to amend 
Section 6, Madam President, so I ask that we take a vote 
on the whole Section 6. 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


37 


MS. NIEVA. Section 6 reads: “The State shall recog- 
nize the right of farmers, farmworkers and landowners, 
of cooperatives and other independent farmers’ organi- 
zations to participate in the planning, organizing, and 
management of the program and shall provide support 
to agriculture through appropriate technology and 
research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, 
and other support services.” 

MR. DAVIDE. It should be “marketing assistance.” 


May I point out tliat in Indonesia this is the principal 
mode of land reform where approximately five million 
people have been transferred from overcrowded Java to 
the outer islands of Indonesia througli what tliey call a 
transmigration policy which, of course, is supported by 
irrigation, one year of free subsistence, donation of all 
the tools required for cultivation, and amenities like 
schools and clinics. 

So it is in that spirit that we propose this amendment. 
Madam President. 


MS. NIEVA. Yes, 1 am sorry. It is “marketing assist- 
ance, and other support services.” 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President. 


MS. NIEVA. May we ask Commissioner Ople whether 
the tenn “WORKERS” would include the landless 
farmers or industrial workers. 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de los Reyes is 
recognized. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Can we not substitute “or- 
ganizing” with ORGANIZATION? I think the phrase 
should be “the planning, ORGANIZATION. . .” 

MR. BENGZON. We accept, yes. 

MS. NIEVA. We accept. 

MR- DE LOS REYES. Thank you. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to Section 
6? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is 

approved. 

MR. RAMA. On Section 7, Madam President, I ask 
that Commissioner Ople be recognized. 

the PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized. 

MR. OPLE. Thank you. Madam President. 

On behalf of Commissioner Nolledo and myself, may 
we propose an amendment in the form of an additional 
sentence which can be indented as a new paragraph 
under Section 7, which reads as foUows: THE STATE 
may resettle the LANDLESS WORKERS IN ITS 
OWN AGRICULTURAL ESTATES WHICH SHALL BE 
DISTRIBUTED TO THE BENEFICIARIES ACCORD- 
ING TO THEIR QUALIFICATIONS. 

The reason for this amendment. Madam President, is 
that the State itself may want to establish model estates 
for agrarian reform and, as a matter of fact, this was the 
preeminent form of agrarian reform initiated by Pres- 
ident Magsaysay in 1953 when the NARRA Settlement 
was established in Palawan and earlier when the EDCOR 
was established in Mindanao. This will complement the 
first part of Section 7 which deals with the lands of the 
public domain suitable to agriculture under lease or 
concession, but in this case it is the State that sets up 
the model agrarian reform estates at its own expense 
just like in the case of the two examples that I cited. 


MR. OPLE. I am referring mainly, in this instance, to 
the landless agricultural workers who do not even till 
their own plot of land and who, according to the statis- 
tics of the NEDA, are now, far in excess, numerically 
speaking, of those engaged in tenancy or sharecropping. 
And that is why as the arable land keeps stable and the 
population keeps exploding, we have this phenomenon 
of millions of landless rural workers who can no longer 
be accommodated in the farms and, therefore, whose 
prospect, unlike that of the tenant farmers and the 
regular farm workers, for ever acquiring land is nil and 
whose prospect for finding jobs outside of agriculture is 
also probably nil. And that is the reason why this is just 
an additional permissive mandate to the State to under- 
take its own agricultural estates where the landless 
workers may be given the opportunity to engage in 
productive work and ultimately own the lands that 
compromise the government’s own agricultural estates. 

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recog- 
nized. 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. Madam President. 

We just would like to clear up the definition of the 
word “WORKERS from Commissioner Ople because 
it might give the impression that it refers to industrial 
or commercial workers. But I understand from his state- 
ment that he is limiting the word “workers” to farmers 
and regular farm workers. 

MR. OPLE. Yes, Madam President. 


MR. Maybe we can change the word 

“WORKERS” to FARMERS AND REGULAR FARM- 
WORKERS. 


MR. OPLE. I would have no objection to that, 
although that is a longer term. 

MR. SUAREZ. And then after the word “DIS- 
TRIBUTED, would the Commissioner have any objec- 


38 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


tion to inserting the phrase TO THEM IN THE MAN- 
NER PROVIDED BY LAW? 

MR. OPLE. I want to thank Commissioner Suarez for 
a major improvement on the language of the proposed 
amendment. 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. 

As the proposal would stand, it reads: “THE STATE 
MAY RESETTLE THE LANDLESS FARMERS AND 
REGULAR FARMWORKERS IN ITS OWN AGRI- 
CULTURAL ESTATES WHICH SHALL BE DIS- 
TRIBUTED TO THEM IN THE MANNER PROVIDED 
BY LAW.” 

MR. OPLE. Yes, Madam President, I accept. 


MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog- 
nized. 

MR. BENNAGEN. May we ask Commissioner Opie 
one more question? Is the idea of the State having its 
own agricultural estates for government to set up and 
manage these agricultural estates? 

MR. OPLE. Yes, this will be subject to the provisions 
of Section 6 in which organizations of farmers, workers 
and landowners — in this case, the government is the 
landowner — cooperatives and other independent 
organizations shall participate in the organization, 
management and direction of the program. 


MR. SUAREZ. ILiank you. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this 
proposed amendment of Commissioner Ople as revised 
by the Committee? 

MR. OPLE. Commissioners Ople and Nolledo, Madam 
President. 


MR. BENNAGEN. What would be the relationship 
of the workers to the State and to the agricultural 
estate? They will just be employed agricultural workers. 

MR. OPLE. No. TTiey are resettled there and the term 
of resettlement is clear in the legal literature. This means 
that they are potential owners of these lands upon meet- 
ing certain standards as may be provided by law. 


THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? 
MR. PADILLA. Madam President. 


MR. BENNAGEN. In other words, at some future 
time, these agricultural estates will be dissolved as State 
agricultural estates? 


THE PRESIDENT, 

nized. 


Commissioner Padilla is recog- 


^'^ays insist on “REGUL>^ 
^ WORKERS”? Precisely, those who are n 
regUiar y employed may be the better beneficiaries 

recipients of this State-organized agricultural sett 
ments. 


MR. OPLE. Yes, and they may, of course, establish 
their own voluntary system of associating with each 
other through a cooperative, if they like, or some other 
mode. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Already independent of the 
State? 


MR OPLE. 1 support, the PadUla amendment to my 
amendment with the permission of the Committee. 

MR. SUAREZ. The Committee would have no objec- 
the descriptive word “REGU- 
as applied to farm workers. Madam President. 


MR. OPLE. Yes. 

MR. BENNAGEN. I thank Commissioner Ople . 

MR. VILLEGAS. Madam President, could I volunteer 
an information just to concretize the proposal of 
Commissioner Ople? 


MR. OPLE. Thank you. 


THE PRESIDENT. Will 
the amendment please. 


Commissioner Suarez read 


STATE MAY I 

wriRkFR^TN ITQ FARMERS AND FAP 

AGRICULTURAL ESTAT 
WHICH SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED TO THEM IN T 
MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW.” 


THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this pro- 
posed amendment to Section 7? 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villegas may 
please proceed. 

MR. VILLEGAS. Malaysia has a very successful 
model that implements the concept of Minister Ople 
through a government corporation called FELDA, 
Federal Land Development Corporation which actually 
distributed small plots of land to farmers. And through 
a nucleus estate which the government put up that 
would process, for example, rubber, they helped thou- 
sands of small holders of rubber trees to actually be 
productive in the growing of this very important crop. 
And little by little, the small holders learned how to 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


39 


get together on their own and form cooperatives. This 
Malaysian model is something that a lot of Filipinos 
are looking at, not only for the government to imple- 
ment but also for private sector groups to implement. 

MR. LERUM. Madam President, may I be recog- 
nized? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Lerum is recog- 
nized. 

MR. LERUM. I am thinking about industrial workers 
who lost their employment but want to go back to the 
province and engage in farming. Are we not dis- 
criminating against tliem if we limit the benefit only 
to farm workers? 

MR. OPLE. I am inclined to support Commissioner 
Lerum ’s intervention for laid-off industrial workers 
who want to go back home and who in the meantime 
may have no land to go back to. 

So, I do not know if the Committee, at this point in 
time, would be able to accommodate. 

MS. QUESADA. Our understanding is that when 
these workers go to the provinces and end up becoming 
workers in these agricultural estates, then they become 
farm workers. So, they would be entitled under this 
provision. 

MR. OPLE. So, they are embraced within the scope 
of “workers” here? 

MS. QUESADA. Yes. 

MR. OPLE. Thank you. Madam President. 

MR. LERUM. Madam President, as long as that is on 
record, I am satisfied. 

MS. NIEVA. Therefore, the entire additional para- 
graph of Section 7 reads as follows: “THE STATE MAY 
RESETTLE LANDLESS FARMERS AND FARM- 
WORKERS IN ITS OWN AGRICULTURAL ESTATES 
WHICH SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED TO THEM IN THE 
manner PROVIDED BY LAW.” 

THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Villegas want 
to say something? 

MR. VILLEGAS. Before we vote on Section 7, may 
I get some clarification about the phrase “in the dis- 
position of other natural resources”? 

As we had already discussed previously, there are 
only three types of public land - mineral, timber or 
agricultural. Of course, if we decide on the national 
parks later on, it would be the fourth. 


MR. BENGZON. We are not yet on that; we are still 
voting on the Ople-Nolledo amendment. 

MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this 
particular amendment of Commissioners Ople and 
Nolledo which has been accepted by the Committee? 
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is 
approved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commis- 
sioner Romulo be recognized to make an amendment 
to the same section. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Romulo is recog- 
nized. 

MR. ROMULO. Actually I had an anterior amend- 
ment, but 1 did not want to disturb Commissioner 
Ople. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Commissioner may please 
proceed. 

MR. ROMULO. On line 2, I propose that between 
the words “reform” and “whenever,” insert the phrase 
OR STEWARDSHIP to enable the State to dispose of 
lands of the public domain under the concept of ste- 
wardship. 

MS NIEVA. So, after “agrarian reform” the proposal 
is to insert “OR STEWARDSHIP.” 

MR. ROMULO. Yes, so the line would read: “The 
State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform OR 
stewardship whenever applicable in accordance 
with law ...” 

MR. TINGSON. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tingson is recog- 
nized. 

MR. TINGSON. I would like to support this amend- 
ment, because the word “STEWARDSHIP” must be 
applied to the concept of landownership. We are not 
really the owners of land. When we really analyze it, 
Madam President, it is God who owns the land. We are 
only but stewards, so 1 would like to support the 
amendment. 

THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Romulo ex- 
plain? 

MR. ROMULO. I have explained it. Madam President. 

MR. BENGZON. The Committee accepts. Madam 
President. 


40 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Villegas 
have any remark on this? 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog- 
nized. 


MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, Madam President, may I 
clarify this phrase: “disposition of other natural 

resources.” I think only agricultural lands are alienable 
in the Article on the National Economy and Patrimony. 
Timberlands and mineral lands are not alienable. What 
is really the objective of applying agrarian reform to 
“disposition of other natural resources”? 


BISHOP BACANI. So that I may vote intelligently, 
may I just ask Commissioner Romulo to explain what 
he means by the principle of stewardship, because 
from the philosophical and theological point of view, 
I find that very laudable; however, I do not know 
whether there is a legal meaning to it which may be 
different from that. 


MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the word “dis- 
position” there does not mean transfer of title. It may 
mean, for example, in the case of forest areas, that in 
the giving of concessions, the people in the community 
around the forest should be given some preferential 
attention or treatment. So, that does not necessarily 
mean transfer of title, and the addition of the words 
‘ OR STEWARDSHIP” probably clarifies it even more. 

MR. VILLEGAS. And so, even in mineral lands the 
Committee is also thinking of small-scale mining? 

MR. MONSOD. Yes, because as ■ the Commissioner 
knows, that is also included in the Article on the Na- 
tional Economy and Patrimony where we talk about 
small-scale utilization of natural resources. 

MR. VILLEGAS. As long as the word “disposition” 
IS eg^y understood not to be synonymous with 
alienation, then I think it is clear. 

MR. MONSOD. Thank you. Madam President. 


MR. RAMA. I ask that Commissioner Azcuna be 
recognized for an amendment to the same section. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Azcuna is recog- 
nized. 


President, I just would like 
to add the words OR UTILIZATION after “disposition” 
o ma e it clear that it really refers more to the use of 
°r resources since only public lands are 


MR. MONSOD. We accept the amendment. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Committee accepts. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President may we iust 
pJam something. While the word “disposHkj^- doe 
necessarily mean transferring legal 11^ we 1 env 
situations where land which is of the public doma 
because we say “including lands of the public don 
suitable to agnculture - becomes available for 
position when the State changes the classification 
we accept the amendment “OR UTILIZATION ” 

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President. 


MR. ROMULO. Yes, Madam President, I propose 
it in the legal sense actually; that is, that the individual 
would have free use or free occupancy but he would 
not be given a legal title to the land. That is what we 
call in law as usufructuary. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog- 
nized. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Nais ko lang idagdag dito iyong 
nabanggit na ni Commissioner Ople kangina tungkol sa 
kaso ng mga kainginero. Mahalaga kasi sa mga lugar na 
classified as forests pero puwedeng agricultural — ka- 
sama dito iyong tree plantations na nabanggit ni Com- 
missioner Villegas — na maaari nilang gamitin ang lupa 
kasama ang principles of agrarian reform; meaning, 
mayroong complementary structures and services that 
would support the use of forest lands for agricultural 
purposes. Ito iyong agro-foresty na tinatawag. Kaya ang 
punto dito, bagaman hindi ibibigay sa kanila ang titulo 
ng lupa, magagamit naman nila ang lupa for a certain 
period of time subject to renewal. In practice, umaabot 
ito ng 25 years o 50 years pero the title is never given 
to them; ito ay kanilang kontrata sa pamahalaan but 
subject to the principles of agrarian reform. Ang ibig 
nitong sabihin, susuportahan ito ng pamahalaan sapag- 
kat sa karanasan ng integrated social forestry program, 
kung walang suporta iyan batay dito sa principles of 
agrarian reform, lalong nasisira ang gubat at hindi 
rin umaasenso ang kabuhayan ng kainginero. 

MR. RAMA. Since there are no more amendments. . . 

THE PRESIDENT. Shall we proceed first to vote on 
the Romulo and Azcuna amendments as incorporated 
by the Committee? Will the Committee please read the 
first three lines? 

MS. NIEVA. “The State shall apply the principles of 
agrarian reform OR STEWARDSHIP whenever appli- 
cable in accordance with law IN the disposition OR 
UTILIZATION of other natural resources ...” 

THE PRESIDENT. Let us vote on those amend- 
ments first. 

Is there any objection? 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


41 


MR. RODRIGO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog- 
nized. 

MR. RODRIGO. Before we vote, in Section 5, the 
State shall undertake an agrarian reform program to 
enable the fanners and regular farm workers to own 
the land. As a matter of fact, this was the subject of 
my interpellation — ownership of the land. 

Now, in this Section 7, we use “STEWARDSHIP” 
but we also say we apply the principles of agrarian 
reform. Does this mean that the words “to own” also 
apply to Section 7? 

MS. NIEVA. I think that was explained, that in 
many instances where the lands belong to the govern- 
ment and may not be alienated, they will not receive 
the title. As it was stated here as an example, the 
600,000 kaingineros — of whom Commissioner Ople 
was very concerned — can take advantage of the utiliza- 
tion of these natural resources, receiving the support of 
the State. And this is what we mean by the principles 
of agrarian reform — that the State shall give them all 
the support and the assistance that they would need to 
be successful in their utilization of these natural re- 
sources, but they will not receive the titles. 

MR. RODRIGO. Not to own? 

MS. NIEVA. Not to own. 

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, I would like to 
ask Commissioner Ople because he said tliat in the case 
of what we call government estates, eventually these 
will be partitioned so that the farmers can own them. 

MR. OPLE. This will lead directly to ownership. 
Madam President. 

In the case of the agricultural estates established 
by the government itself and where the government 
is the landowner, there is no obstacle to the distri- 
bution of the lands on an ownership basis. In the 
case of the kaingineros, I think what prevents the 
conferment of titles of ownership is precisely certain 
classifications of lands. So that if ownership cannot 
yet be vested because of these problems of classi- 
fications, then a stewardship contract is issued to 
them which, I understand from the Ministry of Natural 
Resources, can even be negotiable in terms of a colla- 
teral in a bank. It is that important a piece of paper, 
not yet equivalent to ownership, but it vests certain 
attributes of ownership to the kaingineros who have 
been issued this stewardship contract. 

I think this is related to the usufruct right that 
Commissioner Romulo had earlier talked about, which 
means that under conditions of usufruct one is, for all 
purposes, the owner except that there might be no 
infinity built into his ownership. Most usufruct would 


terminate in 50 years. In Europe usually it is 99 years. 
And so these are all the attributes of ownership except 
in perpetuity. 

MR. RODRIGO. There is no such thing as infinite 
in this world. So when I say, “I am the owner,” it is 
understood that it is not infinite because I am not 
infinite; not even this world is infinite. 

What I would hke to clarify is this: What is the 
underlying philosophy of Section 7? Can the bene- 
ficiaries of Section 7 own, or may they only be stewards 
of the land? I ask so because in Section 5, it is owner- 
ship. 

MR. OPLE. The Committee can speak for itself, 
but before I resume my seat, may I just say that as soon 
as the conditions ripen into ownership, then nothing 
should prevent vesting the full ownership in the holder 
of a stewardship or a usufruct contract. 

Thank you. Madam President. 

MR. RODRIGO. That is why I come back to my 
question: What is the underlying philosophy of Section 
7? Would the farmers under this section eventually 
own the land, or would they be only stewards of the 
land? 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, it would depend 
on the natural resources we are talking about. 

MR. RODRIGO. Let us say disposable public land. 

MR. MONSOD. If it is an alienable and disposable 
public land, then they may acquire title. As a matter 
of fact, in applying the principles of agrarian reform, 
the State should start with its own backyard, which 
are alienable and disposable public lands suitable to 

agriculture. 

MR. RODRIGO. In this Section 7, is the philosophy 
of “land to the filler” also apphcable as it is applicable 
in Section 5? In Section 5, the heirs or the children of 
the owner may not inherit tlie land; the owner may 
not dispose of nor sell the land. Is that true also of 
Section 7? 

MR. MONSOD. Yes, it would apply, but it would 
be applied a little differently if we were talking about 
forest land. For example, where the land itself is not 
alienable but one has a concession to utilize the forest, 
then the laws on forestry would apply, except that 
there would be preferential treatment of the com- 
munities. 

MR. RODRIGO. I am speaking of disposable, alien- 
able pubUc land. 

MR. MONSOD. Yes, it would apply. 


42 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


MR. RODRIGO. So the same limitations on the 
ownership of the farmers and farm workers under 
Section 5 would apply to the beneficiaries of Section 
7? 

MR. MONSOD. That is right, that is precisely why 
we say “the principles of agrarian reform.” 

MR. RODRIGO. I thank the Commissioner. 

THE PRESIDENT. Are we ready to vote? 

MR. BENGZON. Madam President, we just want to 
emphasize that in Section 7, the coverage is wider 
because there is mention here of “other natural resour- 
ces.” And so, in the case of timberlands and mineral 
lands, the principles of agarian reform by way of owner- 
ship and grant of title will not apply. That is where the 
principle of stewardship will apply. 


VOTING 

THE PRESIDENT. Those in favor the proposed 
amendments of Commissioners Romulo and Azcuna 
as incorporated by the Committee will please raise 
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand. ) 

Those against will please raise their hand. (No Mem- 
ber raised his hand.) 

tv, ^®sults show 31 votes in favor and none against; 
the two amendments are approved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, may I ask the Chair- 
man of the Committee to read the entire section as 
amended. 

Section 7 shall now read as follows: 
Ihe State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform 
or stewardship whenever applicable in accordance with 
aw in the disposition or utilization of other natural 
resources, including lands of the public domain suitable 
0 agriculture under lease or concession, subject to 
pnor rights, homestead rights of small settlers and the 

rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral 
lands. 

The State may resettle landless farmers and farm- 
workers m its own agricultural estates which shall 
e IS n ute to them in the manner provided by 


THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? 

MR. TADEO. Madam President, for clarification. 
Prior rights refer to previous rights of indigenous cul- 
tural communities and settlers over the land on which 
they live and cultivate or use for livelihood. 

MR. BENGZON. That is among others. Madam 
President. 


THE PRESIDENT. So are we ready now to vote? 

Is there any objection to Section 7, as amended? 
(Silence) The Chair hears none; Section 7, as amended, 
is approved. 

SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair calls for a suspension 
of the session for a few minutes. 

It was 4:57 p.m. 

RESUMPTION OF SESSION 

At 5:29 p.m., the session was resumed with the 
Honorable Florenz D. Regalado presiding. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). The 
session is resumed. 

The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Com- 
missioner de los Reyes be recognized to present amend- 
ments to Section 8. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner de los Reyes is recognized. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. This amendment is a joint 
amendment of Commissioner Teodulo Natividad, myself 
and the honorable Presiding Officer. 

On Section 8, line 1, delete the word “preferential 
between the words “the” and “rights”; insert the word 
PREFERENTIAL between the words “the” and “use” 
on line 3; and insert the word COMMUNAL between 
the words “oF’ and “marine” on the same line, so 
that the sentence will read: “The State shall protect the 
rights of marginal fishermen and local communities 
to the PREFERENTIAL use of COMMUNAL marine 
and fishing resources, both inland and offshore, 
particularly municipal fishing grounds.” 

The other sentence will be amended correspondingly 
so that the section will not be too long. 

MS. NIEVA. The Committee accepts. 

MR. DAVIDE. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

MR. NATIVIDAD. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Natividad is recognized. 

MR. NATIVIDAD. Will the distinguished proponent 
please yield to some questions? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes, willingly. 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


43 


MR. NATIVIDAD. The phrase “direct or communal” 
was deleted by the Committee. I am with the Commis- 
sioner in this amendment to retain “communal” because 
it might give rise to an impression that communal 
fishing grounds — as we know it now and as should 
be reserved in the future by future Congresses — are 
being frowned upon. 1 welcome the use of the words 
“communal fishing grounds” because this is the only 
way we can give preferential rights to marginal or poor 
fishennen. Ang ibig ko pong sabihin, ang mahihirap 
na mangingisda, katulad din ng mga mahihirap na mag- 
sasaka, ay isang kahig, isang tuka lamang. Hindi po nila 
kayang mabuhay kung sasabihin nating mangisda sila 
sa dakong ilalim ng karagatan, sapagkat wala silang 
kasangkapan o walang bangka. Therefore, even if we 
place in the Constitution the word “preferential,” it 
is a hollow word if we do not reserve an area for them 
in terms of communal fishing grounds where those in 
the same situation in life - iyong mahihirap na ang 
tanging kasangkapan ay iyon lamang generator, isang 
bangka at isang maliit na lambat — can earn their live- 
lihood. 

The other thing I would like to note in this amend- 
ment, in which 1 am joining the Commissioner, is the 
matter of municipal fishing grounds. Doon po sa lala- 
wigan ng Bulakan ay mayroong tinatawag na propyos 
_ propyos ng Hagonoy. propyos ng Paombong, atbp. 
Ang ibig sabihin ng propyos ay municipal fishponds 
or municipal fishing grounds, which are properties 
of the municipality since time immemorial. I think 
we should use another term to avoid confusion. And 
these fishponds are not communal fishing grounds. 
Sa communal fishing grounds, basta mababaw na pook 
ng dagat, lahat ay makapanghuhuli ng hipon at lahat 
ng uri ng maldiit na isda. Hindi bawal sa sinuman 
ang pumasok diyan, basta’t hindi lang gagamit ng 
heavy equipment. lyan ang concept ng communal 
fishing grounds. So I would suggest that “municipal 
fishing grounds” should have another name because 
they might be confused with the municipal fishponds 
that we have in many provinces. Sa inga propyos, hindi 
maaaring manghuli ng isda because these are fishponds 
being leased or operated by municipalities for added 
income of the municipalities. And nobody can fish 
there because these are all encircled by dikes. There- 
fore, they should not be confused with these municipal 
fishing grounds in this article which, to my mind, are 
communal fishing grounds. 

I also agree with the use of the word “conservation” 
because I believe that the State should not only develop 
tliese areas but should also conserve or protect them 
from foreign encorachment and from encroachment 
of rich fishermen or fishpond owners. Sapagkat sa 
aktuwal na situwasyon, maraniing lalawigan ang dapat 
nating tingnan. The borders of communal fishing 
grounds are fishponds. And the fishpond owners, by 
operation of law, extend the boundaries of their fish- 
ponds. Ang tawag namin dito sa Bulacan ay “naglala- 
bas ng palaisdaan,” naglalagay ng pilapil upang sakupin 


ang palaisdaang bayan. That is why I would like to inject 
into this debate that the conservation of these communal 
fishponds should include their protection from en- 
croachment of rich fishermen and fishpond owners, 
wiiich has been the root of many historic struggles 
between the rich and the poor, in this case, between 
the rich fishermen and the poor fishermen. Kaya kung 
tayo man ay nagpapakita ngayon ng pagmamahal sa 
mga magsasaka, nais nating sabihing kasama sa ating 
pagmamalasakit dito ang mahihirap na mangingisda. 

Salamat po. 

MR. SUAREZ. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

MR. DAVIDE. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Davide is recognized. 

MR. DAVIDE. I would like to inquire from the 
proponent certain matters. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes. 

MR. DAVIDE. Would the use of the word “COM- 
MUNAL” as proposed by the Commissioner now 
qualify marine and fishing resources? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. That is correct. 

MR. DAVIDE. So, may Congress set aside certain 
areas as communal marine and fishing areas? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. No. Pursuant to Commissioner 
Davide’s explanation yesterday, Congress may not do 
that because all these lakes are communal. 

MR. DAVIDE. That was precisely the idea of my 
earlier proposal to delete the words “the direct or 
communal use.” Now, under the Commissioner’s pro- 
posal, he would in effect allow Congress to define what 
area within the marine and fishing resource area should 
be considered communal, not the entire area itself. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. On the contrary, it will pre- 
vent Congress from doing what the Commissioner 
envisions. 

MR. DAVIDE. In other words, under this proposal, 
the meaning would be that all marine and fishing 
resources must be communal. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes. 

MR. DAVIDE. If that is the meaning, I would have 
no objection to it. The purpose of my inquiry was 
precisely to prohibit Congress from defining a particular 
area as the only communal area. 


44 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


MR. SUAREZ. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). What 
is the position of the Committee? 

MR. SUAREZ. Mr. Presiding Officer, may we just 
ask the proponent a clarificatory question? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes. 

MR. SUAREZ. Is our understanding correct that 
the communal character would be applied to fishing 
grounds and resources and not to their use? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. No, the use is preferential. 
In the light of the query yesterday of Commissioner 
Ople whether, for example, fishermen from Bulacan 
going to Quezon wUl be denied the use of the communal 
fishing grounds, the answer of the Committee was that 
that was not the intention, but with preferential right 
to marginal fishermen and local communities. 


MR. DE LOS REYES. None, because “communal” 
qualifies marine and fishing resources. 

MR. MONSOD. What about the fishponds, what do 
we call those? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. The fishponds not situated 
in lakes and rivers are different; these are already 
private property. That is precisely the intention of the 
amendment, to do away with fish pens situated within 
lakes and rivers which properly belong to the people 
and to the State. Under land reform, we are taking away 
private property and giving it to the poor, but with 
regard to lakes and rivers, we are doing the reverse. 
The lakes which are communal in nature are instead 
being given or allocated to the rich to the exclusion 
of the marginal fishermen. 

MR. MONSOD. Is the Commissioner saying that 
with this definition, fish pens would no longer be 
allowed? 


MR. SUAREZ. Because as originally proposed by the 
Committee, it would be communal use rather than 
communal marine and fishing resources. But the in- 
tention is clear here that what the Commissioner wants 
to e owned by the community are the fishing resour- 
ces and grounds? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes. 

MR SUAREZ. And the use will be preferential in 
character for the marginal fishermen? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes. 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. 

qufstionf ^ proponent a 


MR. DE LOS REYES. That will be the ultimate 
effect in communal lakes. 

MR. MONSOD. What about Laguna de Bay? Ui 
specific terms, would this Article now prohibit the 
granting of licenses to have fish pehs in Laguna de 
Bay? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. That is the intent of the 
amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner de Castro is recognized. 

MR. DE CASTRO. May I ask the proponent a few 
questions? 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Con 
missioner Monsod is recognized. 

iv ^ Commissioner correc 

arp nnw marine and fishing resourc 

of the queSon S ^^st an amplificatic 

Article contemplate thauiw"" ® 

are now communal, or doel S^Tha 

SVSL^rrl^rJ^r* ™ri, 


MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes. 

MR. DE CASTRO. What does the Commissioner 
mean by “marginal”? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. “Marginal” is not my term; 
that is the definition of the Committee and, therefore, 
the Committee should answer that question. 

MR. DE CASTRO. May I know the meaning of 
“marginal”? 


MR. DE LOS REYES. It is the nrpfp.. i 

1 j p- u- la xne preterential use 

communal and fishmg resources. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Let us 
hear from the Committee. 


MR. MONSOD. Are there marine and fishing resour- 
ces that are not communal? 


MS. NIEVA. By “marginal” I think we are referring 
to the small fishermen. 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


45 


MR. DE CASTRO. What does the Committee mean 
by small fishermen? 

MS. NIEVA. Those who do not operate large fishing 
fleets and so forth; those who are barely eking out their 
living from fishing. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just 
volunteer this infonnation or data on small fishermen. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Let us 
hear from Commissioner Sarmiento. 

MR. SARMIENTO. According to IBON facts and 
figures, the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 
estimates that there are 550,731 municipal fishermen. 
They are distinguished by the fact that they operate in 
coastal waters less than seven fathoms deep, using 
motorized or nonmotorized bancas weighing less than 
three gross tons. Because of the seasonality of fish, 
municipal fishermen operate only on an average of 
five hours a day, twenty days a month and six months 
a year. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Thank you. 

May I ask another question. Does tliat mean that 
if one operates a banca weighing less than tliree tons, 
he is a small fisherman? 

MR. SARMIENTO. Yes, according to this infor- 
mation. 

MR. DE CASTRO. In Laguna de Bay, fishermen, 
including big fishpen operators, use bancas weighing 
less than a ton, say, 16 horsepower. Are they small or 
marginal fishermen? 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). What 
does the Committee say? 

MS. NIEVA. May we have the question again? 

MR. DE CASTRO. From the definition of Honorable 
Sarmiento, he said that the fisherman’s banca must 
weigh more than three tons for him to be classified as 
a big fishermen. But in Laguna de Bay, big fish pen 
operators have a banca less than one ton using the 
Briggs and Stratton 16 horsepower, a small engine. 
Is he classified a small fisherman? 

MR. MONSOD. By the Gentleman’s own definition, 
he would not be a small fisherman because the classi- 
fication is not only on the size of the banca. 

MR. DE CASTRO. What is the other classification? 

MR. MONSOD. Apparently, there are other con- 
siderations such as the size of the holding and the 


capitalization required. These are all the considered 
criteria for determining if a fisherman is small or big. 

MR. DE CASTRO. That is not the definition offered 
by the Honorable Sarmiento. Does the Gentleman 
mean to say that his definition is not the definition 
of the small fisherman? 

MR. SARMIENTO. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Sarmiento is recognized. 

MR. SARMIENTO. May I give this additional in- 
formation because the municipal fishennen were classi- 
fied into two sectors and I think marginal fishermen 
will fall under this second sector. The first sector 
includes those who use motorized bancas and fishing 
gears; the second includes those who use only wooden 
bancas and who are equipped only with hook and line 
and/or small nets. The Ministry of Natural Resources 
estimates that there are 600,000 of the latter sector 
called subsistence fishermen. I think these are the 
marginal fishermen. 

MR. DE CASTRO. So, if a fisherman uses a wooden 
banca with a small-powered motor, principally perhaps 
the Briggs and Stratton 16 horsepower, and uses hook 
and line. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Equipped with hook and line 
and/or small nets. 

MR. DE CASTRO. How small will that net be? 

There are what we call small fishermen in Laguna 
de Bay using nets of about 5 kilometers long known 
as pukot. They are people who are poor, fishing in 
Laguna de Bay using about 5 kilometers long of net 
and using diesel bancas and yet are still considered 
small fishermen. That is why I would like to have a 
definition of a small fisherman because it is possible 
that very small fishermen who depend all their life on 
fishing may be excluded. 

MS. NIEVA. That is why we have used the word 
“marginal.” 

MR. DE CASTRO. Then what is “marginal”? 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

the presiding OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Rosario Braid is recognized. 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. I think there are criteria 
like the annual income of the family. The marginalized 
fishermen, according to research, are usually below the 
poverty-threshold income and are usually the ones who 


46 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


join fishermen’s associations in order that they can get 
loans and marketing and technical assistance. 

A project called FIRM has organized all the marginal- 
ized fishermen, of which there are about 3,843. They 
are all below the poverty income which is one criterion 
added to what we have said earlier. According to a 
survey, 40 percent own their boats and only 20 percent 
own any land. This is probably what would qualify 
them to become marginalized fishermen. 

MR. DE CASTRO. I will give an example. 

In our place, there is a man who is a fisherman 
since birth. In fact, he seldom uses clothes on his back 
and his hair is already red because he is always fishing 
in the sea. He was able to build a good house made of 
hoUow blocks and cement because of his fishing and is 
now considered one of the richest fishermen there. 
He uses about three or four bancas powered by a 
Briggs and Stratton 16 HP. He has about five or ten 

baklads connected with fish pens and catches a good 
amount of fish everyday. He earns a much better 
earning than a regular employee, earning perhaps 
PI, 500 a month. Is he a marginal fisherman under this 
term? If he is not a marginal fisherman, then he will 
not have the right, the preferential right, to fish in 
Laguna de Bay. 

I want to make this clear because he may say, “I am 
a sniall fisherman” and yet he earns more than what a 
regular employee or a lawyer in our place earns. 

MR. BENGZON. Mr. Presiding Officer. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Bengzon is recognized. 


MR. BENGZON. On the basis of all these obser- 
ya ions and doubts of Commissioner de Castro, may we, 

herefore, hear his amendment, if he has formulated 
one. 


R. DE CASTRO. I have not formulated any amend- 
men . would like first to understand what is meant 
by marginal” and what is meant by “small.” 


^ the Committee say 


man whoLe^^^^?’ 1°’ Gentleman means a fis 
man who lives on a hand-to-mouth existence? 


MR. BENGZ()N. That is the meaning that the Com- 
mittee contemplated when it used that word “mar- 
ginal.” If the honorable Commissioner has some dif- 
ficulties with respect to its interpretation, we would 
be happy to consider his amendment. 


MR. DE CASTRO. I will think about it. 

May I ask another question of the proponent? 

BISHOP BACANI. Mr. Presiding Officer, just a clari- 
fication. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Bacani is recognized. 

BISHOP BACANI. It would not be correct to say that 
a fisherman, if he is not classified as “marginal,” would 
not be allowed to use marine and fishing resources. He 
will not only be allowed preferential use. That is what 
would not be allowed unless he falls under “and local 
communities.” But I do not think it would be accurate 
to say that he would be banned from using such resour- 
ces because he is not a marginal fisherman. 

MR. BENGZON. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Bengzon is recognized. 

MR. BENGZON. There is a pending issue at hand and 
that is the amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes 
with respect to the definition of “communal.” I sugges 
that we dispose of that issue first before we get en- 
tangled in another issue as to the definition of 
marginal fishermen and other questions, so that we w 
have some kind of order. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Then I reserve my other questions 
to the proponent. 

MR. RAMA. On the same issue as proposed by Com 
missioner de los Reyes, I ask that Commissioner Villegas 
be recognized. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Villegas is recognized. 

MR. VILLEGAS. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I make a 
clarification? I think I was in error when I referred to 
the four categories - agricultural, forest, mineral lands 
and, if possible, national parks as categories of natural 
resources. Those are the categories of lands of public 
domain. What we have decided in Section 7 is to apply 
the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship to all 
the natural resources which include water, mineral, 
coal, petroleum and other mineral oil, all forces of 
potential energy, fisheries, forests, flora and fauna and 
other natural resources. So, I would like to clarify the 
implication of Section 7 as applying to all the natural 
resources and not only categories of public lands that I 
referred to earlier. In this regard, I would like to dis- 
agree with the suggestion that communal waters like 
Laguna de Bay be so defined to prohibit fish pens. 

1 think there is a provision in the Article on National 
Economy that the State can limit the use of water rights 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


47 


for irrigation, water supply, fisheries or industrial uses 
other than development of water power to beneficial 
use. It would prejudice eight million consumers of fish, 
for example, in Metro Manila if we do not allow a high- 
ly productive technology of fish farming that can be 
given to specific entrepreneurs who can actually fish, 
have fishponds of bangus or other types of freshwater 
fish. As long as we have the prefential rights given to 
these marginal fishennen, I do not tliink we should 
completely prohibit the State from giving this type of 
natural resources to individuals who can productively 
make use of these waters for the benefit of eight million 
consumers of fish in Metro Manila. That is why it is 
very much parallel to the concept of agrarian reform 
where we do not prohibit the private cultivation of 
land by individuals. We have, for example, the retention 
limit. So, I would object in saying categorically that 
fish pens are prohibited in communal waters like Laguna 
de Bay. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Will Commissioner Villegas 
answer one question? 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner de los Reyes is recognized. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. In his experience and studies, 
does the Gentleman know of any other country that 
allows its lakes and rivers to be fenced in such a manner 
that a few moneyed people are able to' exclude the 
marginal fishermen from fishing in the communal 
fishing grounds? 


MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, definitely. In fact, Nigeria 
has imported Philippine technologists to teach her 
how to do inland fish farming. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Aside from Nigeria. 


MR. VILLEGAS. There are not so many countrie 
Ulce the Philippines that have developed the indigenou 
technology of fish farming Actually, for the infoi 

mation of the body, we foe pacesetters in the worl( 
in fish farming, and I thmk it would be very much ini 
mical to the very mterest of the poor. Remember tha 
50 percent of the diet of the poor depends on fish, an( 
if we start preventing technology from being used in th 
cultivation of water resources — I repeat, I am no 
against the application of the principles of agrariai 
reform and stewardship to the marine resources; I an 
very much in favor but I think we cannot be exclu 


sivists — and say that absolutely no use of communal 
waters will be allowed for a technology that has been 
evolved through the years in the Philippines . . . Just to 
allay the fears about the small fishermen, we are also 
recommending in the Article on the National Economy 
that priority be given to cooperative fish farming in 
rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons. So, in the same way 
that in agrarian reform we say direct use or collective 


use of land, we can also include in foe provision for 
small fishermen that they can get together and, in a 
cooperative way, take advantage of foe technology of 
fishfarming. But it does not mean that we cannot 
completely prohibit a private individual from doing foe 
same thing. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner de los Reyes will first reply to the clarification 
of Commissioner Villegas. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Ako ay walang tutol na mag- 
karoon tayo ng teknolohiya upang lalong maging 
masulong ang pangingisda. Subalit hindi ito dapat gawin 
sa Laguna Lake at sa iba pang communal fishing grounds. 
Dapat itong gawin sa mga inland fishing grounds. 
Kaya ko ipinaglalaban ang sampung libong mangingisda 
na naninirahan sa paUgid ng Laguna at Rizal ay madali 
silang mahihikayat ng ating mga kapatid sa labas na 
lumaban sa kasalukuyang sistema ng ating pamahalaan 
sapagkat sinasabi ng ating mga kapatid sa labas na ang 
ating batas ay para sa mayayaman lamang. Kapag sini- 
mulan nating bigyan ng pagkakataon ang mga fish pen 
operators, wika nga ni Ka Bias Ople, in foe real world 
ay hindi naman magiging preferential lamang. Unti- 
unting mawawala ang small fishermen at magiging ka- 
tulad ng mga American-Indians na sinasabing hindi 
pipinsalain subalit unti-unting napapapunta sa Indian 
reservations. lyon po ang aking ipinaglalaban dito. 
Sampung libong pamilya ang nahihikayat na ng ating 
mga kapatid na sinasabi nating naliligaw ng landas. 
Gusto nating magkaroon ng pagkakataong ipakita sa 
kanila na sila ay hindi nalilimutan ng pamahalaan. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

the presiding officer (Mr. Regalado). We will 
hear briefly from Commissioner de Castro on a point 

of information. 


MR. DE CASTRO. May I offer some information 
in the light of the fact that we are talking about Laguna 
Bay. Laguna Bay has an area of 90,000 hectares. The 
Laguna Lake Development Authority has limited the 
fish pens to about 2 1 ,000 hectares and only in a certain 
area, the reason being that it really supplies a greater 
amount of fish in Metro Manila and these fish pens 
employ approximately 5 to 10,000 employees in their 
fish pens. Also, with fish pens given the right to be built 
in Laguna de Bay, all the places beginning from Ilocos 
down to the southernmost of Mindanao have a good 
way of living because of catching the fries — ’yung 
kawag na tinatawag na nagiging bangus. Ngayong mga 
panahong hindi pa dumarating ang bagyo, maraming 
kawag sa Ilocos Norte, Zambales, Bataan hanggang 


48 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


Aurora, then down to Zambales,to the whole Bicol 
region, Palawan, Mindoro and the whole Visayas up to 
Zamboanga. Ang hanapbuhay ng mga tao sa tabi ng 
dagat ay manghuli ng kawag at sila ay kumikita ng 
malaki rito. At ang mga kawag na ito ay kailangan 
sapagkat ginagamit ng ilang fish pens sa Laguna de Bay. 

Will the proponent answer one question? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Is the Gentleman aware that there 
are fish pens established by the so-caUed small fishermen 
through the ADB-OPEC funding? 


MR. DE LOS REYES. There is such a program and I 
also know that these fishermen who claim to be fisher- 
men are not really fishermen but dummies of moneyed 
people. 


MR. DE CASTRO. So, the Gentleman wants to say 
manipulated this money for ADB- 
, which money was taken from the Organization 
® Exporting Countries through a loan and 

t en given to the LLDA for the construction of fish 
pens of supposedly small fishermen who have estab- 
lished themselves into cooperatives. Is the Gentleman 
now tellmg me that the ADB-OPEC funds have been 
misused by the LLDA? 


is REYES. I am not saying that the LLDA 

IS dehberately misusing the OPEC funds. What I am 

ymg IS t at even the LLDA people are being misled 
class who act as dummies of the moneyed 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). With 
tins mformation given to us and the statistical data 
ma e available, what is the position of the Committee? 

Pre“Lg'ofn«?^*' Mr. 


MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer, there has been 

no proposal for amendment. 


u perhaps Commissioner de los Reyes, and ( 
ommissicmers Natividad and Davide, can summ< 

rnmmn^ 1 regarding the proper definitioi 

communal manne and aquatic resources. 


MR. VILLEGAS. May I have 
one final reaction. 


one last word please; 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER 
missioner Villegas may proceed 


(Mr. Regalado). Com- 


• ^ thmk we are already treading 

m legislation because we are talking about Laguna de 
Bay. I think I would completely agree with Commis- 
sioner de los Reyes regarding the general principle he 


mentioned that there are other inland waters that can 
be used for fish pens. I think he did admit already that 
in principle he is not against having other inland waters. 

The only bone of contention right now is whether or 
not Laguna de Bay is going to be included among these 
bodies of water. 

MR. MONSOD. May I just interrupt. The reason I 
wanted Commissioner de los Reyes to speak is that 
earlier we had asked him if his amendment auto- 
matically means that the entire Laguna de Bay, as an 
example, is considered a communal marine and fishing 
resource. We would want to seek a clarification of his 
answer because his initial answer was that the entire 
Laguna de Bay can be considered communal. That is 
the reason we wanted a clarification. Perhaps, that 
could also help the Gentleman’s concern. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). What 
does Commissioner de los Reyes say? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. After conferring with Com- 
missioners Natividad and Davide and explaining to me 
the situations obtaining in their respective provinces, 
I am beginning to believe that we should have senators 
so that they will have parochial views. I think I might 
be having parochial views with regard to Laguna de 
Bay. 

But, according to Commissioner Natividad, the 
shallow portions should be considered commun 
because that is where the marginal fishermen cou 
fish. But the deep portions of bays, rivers or lakes are 
where marginal fishermen could not fish. Therefore, 
nonmarginal fishermen, those who have big bancas, 
can be allowed to fish in deep portions, giving pr^ 
ferential right, however, to marginal fishermen to ns 
in the shallow portions. 

Therefore, hearing the different views submitted to 
this representation the suggestion is to insert the w.or 
THE before “communal” to read: “to the preferential 
use of THE communal marine and fishing resources to 
convey the idea that it refers only to that portion whicrn 
is declared communal. Considering that legislation is 
the art of the possible, I am willing to accept that 
suggestion. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officerj may I ^sk 
one question of the proponent? 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner de Castro is recognized. 

MR- DE CASTRO. When the Gentleman says “deep” 
and he refers to Laguna de Bay, may I know how many 
feet is the deepest portion of Laguna de Bay? 

I know that Laguna de Bay is deepest during the 
rainy season, especially from August to September, 
reaching about 1 5 feet; then during smmmer, it is only 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7,1986 


49 


12 feet. What is now the communal portion since it 
is sometimes deep and sometimes shallow? I know 
this because I live near Laguna de Bay and I may even 
be considered a marginal fishennan. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. The problem in Laguna, as the 
Gentleman very well knows, is that fish pens are be- 
ing constructed in those portions where traditionally 
the small fishermen fish. Because of their big capital, the 
big fishermen could move their fish pens somewhere in 
the middle of the lake. 

Also, the problem in Laguna de Bay is that there is 
progressive and uncontrollable siltation. The Gentleman 
knows what siltation is. Laguna de Bay is becoming a 
dead lake; it is getting shallower and shallower. And the 
reason is the fish pens, the bamboos stuck in Laguna de 
Bay prevent the free fiow and circulation ot water and 
that is the cause of siltation. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officer, that was the 
statement made by our governor. He said that bamboos 
cause siltation and nets prevent water circulation. It is 
mere common sense, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

MR. BENGZON. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Let us 
hear from the Committee whether they are satisfied by 
the clarification given by Commissioner de los Reyes. 

de CASTRO. The holes of nets are big and the 
water can flow througli. 

MR. BENGZON. We are already zeroing in on a 
specific portion of the Philippines . . . 

MR. DE CASTRO. I only made these comments 
because I happen to know Laguna Lake which we are 
talking about, and I am giving this information for the 
benefit of the Committee. 

MR BENGZON. May we hear from Commissioner 
Monsod m representation of the Committee. 

MR. MONSOD. The explanation of Commissioner de 
los eyes of his proposed amendment now clarifies the 

poin we raised before, and we are accepting his amend- 
ment. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner de los Reyes will please read his proposed 
amendment. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. “The State shall protect the 
rights of marginal fishermen and local communities to 
the preferential USE OF THE communal marine 
and fishing resources, both inland and offshore ...” The 
coauthors are Commissioner Natividad, the Presiding 
Officer and Commissioner Davide. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). The 
amendment has been accepted by tlie Committee. Is 
there any objection? 

MR. RODRIGO. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Rodrigo is recognized. 

MR. RODRIGO. Now that the Committee has ac- 
cepted that amendment, I would like to propound a few 
questions to the Committee for clarification. 

The provision now states tliat the State shall protect 
the rights of marginal fishennen and local communities 
to the preferential use of the communal marine and 
fishing resources, both inland and offshore. 

So, there are two conditions in order to get a prefer- 
ence: first, he must be a marginal fisherman; second, he 
must live in the local community. Must these two con- 
ditions both be present? In other words, does one have 
to be bodi a marginal fisherman and live in the com- 
munity? 

MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer, those are not 
conjunctive. In other words, one may be a marginal 
fisherman and be entitled to preferential use or it may 
be the entire local community. 

MR. RODRIGO. So, a marginal fisherman, let us say, 
from Bataan, can fish in Bulacan waters, in the com- 
munal fishing ground in Bulacan. 

MR MONSOD. We are referring to the fishermen in 
the area. And what the Committee had in mind was 

ally either individually or the entire community be- 
cause there are local communities that have formed 
fishing cooperatives. 

MR RODRIGO. I am not speaking of cooperatives 
but of marginal fishermen. May any marginal fisherman 
from any part of the Philippines have preferential right 
to fish in the communal fishing ground by the shores of 
Bulacan Province, or only the'marginal fishermen in that 
aria of Bulacan Province? 

MR. MONSOD. I think we answered the question 
yesterday during the interpellations of Commissioner 
Ople, that it is not the primary intention of the Com- 
mittee to exclude. In other words, somebody from 
another place who is a marginal fisherman may avail of 
the preferential use of these marginal areas. So, because 
it is not exclusive to the people in the area marginal 
fishermen may avail of them. This was asked yesterday 
by Commissioner Ople. 

MR. RODRIGO. So, provided one is a marginal 
fisherman, he is given preferential right to fish in any 
communal fishing ground anywhere in the Philippines; 
is that right? 


50 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


MR. MONSOD. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

MR. RODRIGO. If one lives in the vicinity, even if he 
is a rich fisherman, he can fish in the communal fishing 
ground of the vicinity. 

MR. MONSOD. Yes, the preferential use is for certain 
people. 


MR. RODRIGO. Let us discuss the implementation 
of this because I would not want to raise the hopes of 
our people, and afterwards fail in the implementation. 
How will this be implemented? Will there be licensing or 
giving of permits so that government officials will know 
that one is really a marginal fisherman? Or if policemen 
say that a person is not a marginal fisheiman. he can 
show his permit, to prove that indeed he is one. 


MR. RODRIGO. The Gentleman said this is either-or. 
As to a marginal fisherman, he does not have to live in 
the local community to get preferential treatment. 

How about those who live in the local communities? 
Do they get preferential treatment only if they are 
marginal fishermen? 

MR. BENGZON. Yes. 

MR. RODRIGO. Or is it enough that they live in the 
local community? 

MR. BENGZON. No. If an individual lives in a local 
community but he is not a marginal fisherman, he does 
not have preferential treatment. 

^ MR. RODRIGO. What is then the use of placing 
local community" here? We might as well delete the 


MR. BENGZON. Certainly, there will be some mode 
of licensing insofar as this is concerned and this parti- 
cular question could be tackled when we discuss the 
Article on Local Governments — whether we will leave 
to the local governments or to Congress on how these 
things will be implemented. But certainly, I think our 
congressmen and our local officials will not be bereft of 
ideas on how to implement this mandate. 

MR. MONSOD. There are two aspects to this: the 
aspect of exclusion and the aspect of inclusion. In the 
case of exclusion, it is easier. In other words, in areas 
considered communal, the putting up of fish pens 
or allowing big fishing enterprises to fish in that area 
may be prohibited. That is the exclusion aspect. In the 
case of inclusion, on who are considered marginal fisher- 
men or what are marginal local communitiesj I believe 
the answer of Commissioner Bengzon would apply- 
There might be a need for identifying them by a system 
of licensing. 


nf ^'■®siding Officer, is it the intent 

e ommittee to refer to groups or to persons who 
tish as a group in the local community? 

MR RODRIGO. But suppose marginal fishermen 
r(^ alawan, fishing as a group, come to Manila Bay to 
1 m the communal fishing ground by the seashore of 
u acan. They are marginal fishermen working as a 
group; are they entitled to preference? 

MR. BENGZON. We believe that that is really theore- 
ic and may remain theoretical because marginal 
IS ermen, for example, in Palawan, whether they go as 
m ivi uals or in groups, cannot afford to go to Manila, 


MR. RODRIGO. So, once one is licensed as a mar- 
ginal fisheiman, he can go anywhere in the Philippines 
and fish in any fishing grounds. 

MR. BENGZON. Subject to whatever rules and regu- 
lations and local laws that may be passed, may be 
existing or will be passed. 

MR. RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). The 
Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. I think the issue has been sufficiently 
debated. I move that we take a vote. 


MR. RODRIGO. Palawan 
about from Cavite? 


is indeed too far. How 


MK. BtNGZON. Even then. The real intei 

inXiduaUy w af a ^ou^^ If°5hey^'’"^'"'‘”^*-®^’i 
men, then they have preferential trealTnt'ove 
who are not marginal, whether they Uve in th 
munity or not. 


MR. RODRIGO. As long as they are marginal. 
MR. BENGZON. Yes. 


MR. VILLEGAS. Mr. Presiding Officer, just a possible 
amendment to avoid confusion on the phrase “local 
communities." I think it is quite clear that what the 
Gentleman meant was directly or collectively, as he said 
in the provision on agrarian reform. 

the presiding officer (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Villegas is offering an amendment to the 
proposed amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes. 

MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, that is right. 

the presiding officer (Mr. Regalado). The 
Gentleman may proceed. 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


51 


MR. VILLEGAS. After the phrase “rights of,” add 
MARGINAL FISHERMEN DIRECTLY OR COLLEC- 
TIVELY TO THE PREFERENTIAL so that the phrase 
“local communities” is not misunderstood. So, the pro- 
vision will read; “The State shall protect the rights of 
MARGINAL FISHERMEN DIRECTLY OR COLLEC- 
TIVELY TO THE PREFERENTIAL use of THE COM- 
MUNAL marine and fishing resources . . .” 

MR. MONSOD. What about “INDIVIDUALLY OR 
COLLECTIVELY”? 

MR. VILLEGAS. “INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLEC- 
TIVELY.” 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Does 
Commissioner de los Reyes accept the proposed amend- 
ment to his amendment? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Will Commissioner Villegas 
repeat his amendment? 

MR. VILLEGAS. “Tlie State shall protect the rights 
of MARGINAL FISHERMEN INDIVIDUALLY OR 
COLLECTIVELY TO THE PREFERENTIAL use . . .” 
and all the rest will be like the Gentleman’s proposal. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. What happened to “local com- 
munities”? 

MR. VILLEGAS. “COLLECTIVELY” refers to 
“local communities.” 

MR. DE LOS REYES. We accept the amendment. 

the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). What 
does the Committee say? 

MR. BENGZON. We accept, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Is there 
any objection to the proposed amendment, as amended 
by Commissioner de los Reyes? 

MR. RODRIGO. Just one question. Are the words 
“local communities” deleted? 

MR. BENGZON. Yes, the phrase “local communi- 
ties” was deleted and replaced by the word “COLLEC- 
TIVELY.” 

MR. BROCKA. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I be recog- 
nized? 

MR. RODRIGO. May I just pursue this point, just 
one sentence. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Brocka is recognized. 


MR. BROCKA. I am a member of the Committee and 
when we were discussing this — “local communities” 
specifically — this was in reference to that particular 
example given, the Laguna de Bay fishermen. So, the 
phrase “marginal fishermen INDIVIDUALLY AND 
COLLECTIVELY” does not quite catch the reference 
to a particular community in that particular area. When 
we were discussing this particular phrase “local commu- 
nities,” it was in direct reference to a particular fishing 
community like Laguna de Bay. The amendment does 
not quite catch the meaning of the discussions on that. 

MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer, when we used 
“local communities” earlier, it was appropriate because 
we were also using “communal use.” Then we enlarged 
the meaning so that we took out “beneficial or com- 
munal” and just left “use.” We can change the wording 
to “COLLECTIVE” because it would have the same 
meaning in that context. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Bacani is recognized. 

BISHOP BACANI. Will the meaning be preserved if 
we say “The State shall protect the rights of marginal 
fishermen ESPECIALLY THOSE IN THE local com- 
munities to the PREFERENTIAL use of the COM- 
MUNAL marine and fishing resources . . .”? 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). What 
does the Committee say? 

MR. BENGZON. The amendment does not capture 
our real intent. 

BISHOP BACANI. The amendment includes marginal 
fishermen and the preference for them in the local com- 
munities because obviously in the Committee, we did 
not intend to give preference even to the nonmarginal 
fishermen in the local community. The real stress was 
for the marginal fishermen in the local communities and 
I think the amendment will actually express what you 
are trying to do in the community. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). So what 
is the position of the Committee? 

SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Otficer, may we have a 
minute to consult with the rest of the Committee on 
this? 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). The 
session is suspended for a few minutes. 

It was 6:27 p.m. 

RESUMPTION OF SESSION 

At 6:35 p.m., the session was resumed. 


.52 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). The 
session is resumed. 

Will the Committee now state its phraseology of this 
proposed sentence? 

MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer, may we ask 
that Commissioner Bacani be recognized? 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Bacani is recognized. 

BISHOP BACANI. Mr. Presiding Officer, after confer- 
ring with the members of the Committee, it seems we 
are all agreed now. The provision will read: “The State 
shall protect the rights of MARGINAL FISHERMEN 
ESPECIALLY OF local communities to the PRE- 
FERENTIAL USE OF THE communal marine and 
fishing resources.” 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Is there 
any objection to the proposed amendment as read by 
Commissioner Bacani? 

MR. PADILLA. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Padilla is recognized. 

MR. BENGZON. Yes, “the preferential use of com- 
munal marine and fishing resources.” 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Will 
Commissioner Bacani please read again his proposed 
amendment? 

BISHOP BACANI. I will read it again although that 
was not the particular point of the amendment I intro- 
duced. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). And 
that continues to “both inland and offshore, PARTI- 
CULARLY IN MUNICIPAL FISHING GROUNDS.” 


BISHOP BACANI. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. 


MS. NIEVA. Yes, the Committee accepts the amend- 
ment. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Is there 
any objection to this proposed amendment? 

MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner de Castro is recognized. 


MR. DE CASTRO. Before we vote on this, may I be 
a lowed to reserve my definition of “marginal fisher- 
ecause I intend to make the research tonight 
and see what “marginal” is. As of now, 1 am not cleared 
o what is marginal” and what are “small fishermen.” 
May I reserve the right to define these terms? 


the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr 
inclusion in the Journal tomorrow. 


Regalado). 


Jo^ml inclusion in 

“mareinal” the change of the Wi 

marginal based on the definition because as of n 
the definition is hand-to-mouth. ^ ° 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Is this 
within the entire proposed present text? 

BISHOP BACANI. “The State shall protect the rights 
of marginal fishermen ESPECIALLY OF local com- 
munities to the PREFERENTIAL use of THE COM- 
MUNAL marine and fishing resources both inland and 
offshore PARTICULARLY IN MUNICIPAL FISHING 
GROUNDS.” 

MR. PADILLA. Will the proponent consider the right 
of marginal fisherman in his local community? 1 make it 
singular because when you say in their respective or 
local communities, while it is singular, the preferentia 
right applies to all marginal fishermen. 

BISHOP BACANI. There are two senses that we 
wanted to preserve and that is why that formulation was 
presented by myself first, that we should also accord 
preferential treatment to fishermen from other com- 
munities provided they are marginalized. Second, we 
should especially accord the right of preferential use to 
fishermen who belong to the local community. We do 
not intend to give the right of preferential use to rich 
fishermen in the local communities. That is the reason 
for the special formulation. 


MR. BENGZON. Mr. Presiding Officer, may we ask 
for a vote? 


VOTING 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr Regalado) W 
does the Committee say? Kegaiado). w 


MR. BENGZON. We request that we first vote on the 
amendment of Commissioner Bacani and then we will 
decide on the proposal of Commissioner de Castro. 


the presiding OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). As 
many as are in favor of the proposed first sentence 
of this section, as amended, please raise their hand. 
( Several Members raised their hand.) 

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No 
Member raised his hand.) 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


53 


Tlie results show 30 votes in favor and none against; MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Mr. Presiding Officer, 
the amendment is approved. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officer. missioner Rosario Braid is recognized. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner de Castro is recognized. 

MR. DE CASTRO. May I now reserve my right to 
define marginal fishennen? May I be given at least to- 
night to do my research on what “marginal” means? 

Thank you. 

MR. RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). The 
Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. I ask that Commissioner Davide be 
recognized. 


MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Would Commissioner Davide 
accept an amendment to his amendment? I was wonder- 
ing if he can delete the first “support” so that it will 
just read: “THE STATE shall ALSO provide appropriate 
technology . . . AND OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES.” 

MR. DAVIDE. Mr. Presiding Officer, we only want a 
symmetry of this proposal with the earlier wordings on 
Section 6, and symmetry in the benefits and advantages 
to be given to both the farmers, farm workers, coopera- 
tives and so on on the one hand, and to the marginal 
fishermen on the other. I would like to consider Com- 
missioner Rosario Braid as a coauthor in view of the 
use of the words AND OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES, 
which was her amendment to Section 6. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Davide is recognized. 


MR. DAVIDE. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

My amendments to Section 8 are very simple. I hope 
the Committee will accept the same. This would be on 
lines 5, 6, and 7. On line 5 between the words “provide” 
and “appropriate,” insert SUPPORT THROUGH; be- 
tween “appropriate” and “financial,” insert the follow- 
ing: TECHNOLOGY, RESEARCH AND ADEQUATE. 
Then delete “tech” at the end of the line. On line 6, 
delete “nical” and the words “and research” and before 
“assistance,” insert PRODUCTION AND MARKETING. 
After “assistance,” insert the words AND OTHER SUP- 
PORT SERVICES. So, the two lines will read: “grounds 
and shall provide SUPPORT THROUGH appropriate 
technology, research and ADEQUATE FINANCIAL 
PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ASSISTANCE 
and OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES.” 

the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Just a 
moiTieiit, Commissioner Davide. After “grounds ” there 
is a period. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Is Com- 
missioner Rosario Braid satisfied with the Gentleman’s 
withdrawing her amendment to the amendment? 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. I am just concerned about 
the use of the words and I would be willing to have the 
anterior amendment in Section 6 and just say “shall 
provide appropriate technology.” It is really just a 
matter of style and maybe the Committee on Style can 
handle it. 

MR. DAVIDE. Mr. Presiding Officer, the intention 
here is just to provide support. But if we remove the 
word “support,” it would be mandatory on the part of 
the State and the State may not be able to afford this. 
So, I think providing support is the better compromise. 

the presiding officer (Mr. Regalado). Is Com- 
missioner Rosario Braid satisfied with that explanation? 

MR. SARMIENTO. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I pro- 
pose an amendment to the amendment? 


MR. DAVIDE. Was it placed already? 

MS. NIEVA. Yes. 

the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). So the 
first sentence ends after the word “grounds.” What the 
Gentleman is now proposing will be the second sentence. 

MR. DAVIDE. So, the second sentence will read: 
“THE STATE shall ALSO provide SUPPORT THROUGH 
appropriate technology, research and ADEQUATE 
FINANCIAL, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING AS- 
SISTANCE AND OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES, TO 
SAID FISHERMEN for the . . .” 


MS. ROSARIO BRAID. I yield to Commissioner 

Sarmiento. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Sarmiento is recognized. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Is Commissioner Davide willing 
to delete the word “SUPPORT” in the phrase “AND 
OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES” because we would be 
having two supports.’ So, the amendment will read: 
“provide SUPPORT THROUGH appropriate techno- 
logy, research and ADEQUATE FINANCIAL, PRO- 
DUCTION AND MARKETING ASSISTANCE AND 
OTHER SERVICES.” 


I 


54 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


MR. DA VIDE. We are agreeable with the interpreta- 
tion that these other services would simply mean other 
support services. But just to avoid repeating the word 
“support,” we are agreeable. 


MR. SUAREZ. Will the Honorable Davide agree to 
change the beginning of the sentence from “THE 
STATE” to IT because there is already a repetition? 

MR. DAVIDE. Gladly, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). So, how 
will the proposed second sentence now read? 


MR. DAVIDE. It will now read as follows: “IT shall 
also provide SUPPORT THROUGH appropriate tech- 
nology, research and ADEQUATE FINANCIAL, PRO- 
DUCTION AND MARKETING ASSISTANCE* AND 
OTHER SERVICES, TO SAID FISHERMEN for 
the . . .” 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). May we 
hear from the Committee? 


MR. BENGZON. We accept the amendment. 

Officer Committee accepts, Mr. Presidir 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Is there 
My objection to the proposed amendment constituting 
the second sentence of this section? (Silence) The Chair 
nears none; the amendment is approved. 

MR. DAVIDE. I wonder if Commissioner Ople would 
have no amendment. 

MR. RAMA. He has an amendment on the same 
section. 


additional sentence which, of course, 
wou require dropping the phfase about foreign intru- 
sion. 


MS. NIEVA. The phrase was dropped. 

MR. OPLE. Was it already dropped? 

MS. NIEVA. Yes, this was a mistake yesterday. 

MR. OPLE. So, I do not think I would stand in the 
way of any further amendment by Commissioner 
Davide. 

MR. DAVIDE. The words “and from intrusion of 
foreign investments . . .” 


MS. NIEVA. The phrase was dropped by the Com- 
mittee. It was only typed in by mistake of the staff. 
There is a corrected page but we are just using this one. 

MR. DAVIDE. So, this was dropped already because 
my proposal will be to delete tliis phrase. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). So, 
where will the sentence end? 

MR. DAVIDE. However, I would like to insert the 
word PROTECTION and a comma (,) before “develop- 
ment” on line 7 because this wilt give way to another 
proposal regarding foreign intrusion but worded dif- 
ferently. I understand that Commissioner Ople will have 
an amendment to that effect. So, in anticipation of his 
amendment which would relate tb protection, we 
would now insert the word PROTECTION and a 
comma (,) before “development” to read: “PROTEC- 
TION, development and conservation of such resources. 

MS. NIEVA. The Committee accepts the amendment. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Then 
we delete “and from intrusion of foreign investments. 

MR. DAVIDE. Yes, that has already been deleted. So, 
it is just the insertion of the word PROTECTION fol- 
lowed by a comma (,) before “development” on line 7, 
to give way to the Ople proposal which I also am willing 
to support. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Is there 
any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none, tie 
amendment is approved. 

MR. RAMA. I ask that Commissioner Ople be recog- 
nized. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Ople is recognized. 

MR. OPLE. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

The proposed amendment which is a new sentence 
under Section 8 shall read as follows: THE STATE 
SHALL ESTABLISH A POLICY TO PROTECT FROM 
FOREIGN INTRUSION THE NATIONAL TERRITO- 
RIAL WATERS WITH THEIR MARINE WEALTH 
WHICH SHALL BE RESERVED TO EXCLUSIVE 
EXPLOITATION BY FILIPINO CITIZENS ESPECIAL- 
LY SMALL FISHERMEN. This amendment is proposed 
jointly by Commissioners Natividad, Rodrigo, de los 
Reyes, de Castro, Davide and myself. I think I will spare 
the Commission and the Committee the reiteration of 
the basis for this amendment which I made yesterday 
during the general debate. We all know that the intru- 
sion of foreign fishing vessels in our fishing waters, 
among the richest in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, has 
reached scandalous proportions. In a place just off Iba, 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


55 


Zambales — and this incident I had the occasion to 
report to this body yesterday — to add insult to injury, 
Japanese fishing vessels even have the temerity to ram 
the small boats of small Filipino fishermen. This was 
brought to my attention and a report was sent by me to 
competent authorities concerning this. Therefore, I 
think tliis will round off the section immediately pre- 
ceding m terms of declaring a policy to protect our 
marine wealth in our own territorial waters from the 
intrusion of foreign fishing vessels and from foreign 
capital. There is an element m the last part where a 
policy of preserving tlie exploitation of our marine 
wealtli to Filipino citizens especially small fishermen is 
set forth. So, I ask for the Committee’s kind considera- 
tion of this proposed amendment. 

MR. FOZ. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Foz is recognized. 

MR. FOZ. May I ask just one question of the pro- 
ponent of the amendment? 

MR. OPLE. Very gladly, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

MR. FOZ. By national territorial waters, are we refer- 
ring to the territorial sea of the Philippines? 

MR. OPLE. Yes, especially the coastal waters which 
are exploited but which should be exploited by our own 
fishermen alone, by our own citizens alone. 


MR. FOZ. Are we also referring to the so-called 
archipelagic waters? 

MR. OPLE. I am not sure but I understand the speci- 
fic meaning of archipelagic waters. But if they belong to 
our territorial waters, then they are comprised by these. 

MR. FOZ. What about th^e internal waters as men- 
tioned and more or less defined in our Article on the 
National Terntory? 

undoubtedly, Mr. 


MR: FOZ. What about the waters in the sok: 
exc lustve economic zone over which, under the 
vention of the Law of the Sea, the PhUippines 
jurisdiction? 


MR. OPLE. The construction of the 200-mile econo- 
uiic zone by most authorities pertains to the wealth in 
the seabed. I think in the same degree that Filipino 
fishermen are allowed to fish in the 200-economic mile 
zone of our neighboring countries, then this same 
privilege should not be denied to the fishermen of other 
countries. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Concepcion is recognized. 

MR. CONCEPCION. The 200-mile exclusive econo- 
mic zone is now part of the internal waters of the 
Philippines. Our base line is drawn from the farthest 
points into the sea. The line drawn extends from 
Batanes to Palawan, down to the southernmost part of 
Mindanao, following the farthest point of our territory 
into the sea. The economic zone starts from the base 
line at present. There is no question, therefore, that 
from the old meaning of these terms, the area in ques- 
tion is included within our internal waters, which is 
subject to our sovereignty. 

MR. OPLE. I want to thank Commissioner Concep- 
cion for offering this information, although this may 
differ somewhat from the meaning attributed by others 
to the 200-economic mile zone. I do not think the 200- 
mile economic zone has a one-to-one correspondence 
with our internal waters. As a matter of fact, these 
economic zones have to be negotiated with neighboring 
countries when there is an overlap of the 200-mile eco- 
nomic zones. An example is Taiwan which is separated 
from the northern cape of Luzon by just about 120 
miles, and where do we put the economic zone of the 
Philippines and of Taiwan in that respect? 

MR. CONCEPCION. That was before the adoption of 
the archipelagic doctrine but not since then. 

MR. OPLE. To the extent that Commissioner Con- 
cepcion is right, so long as an economic zone is under- 
stood to comprise part of our internal waters, then there 
is a call under this paragraph for the Philippines to 
protect these waters and their marine wealth from 
foreign intrusion, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

MR. CONCEPCION. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Of- 
ficer. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Bennagen is recognized. 

MR- BENNAGEN. May we ask the proponent for the 
sake of the record as to what is encompassed by foreign 
intrusion? 

MR- OPLE. Foreign intrusion in this respect refers 
above all to fishing vessels which directly encroach on 
marine wealth that should be enjoyed exclusively by 
our fishermen. Secondly, it refers to foreign capital 
because as we can see in the last clause, the marine 
wealth in this territorial water shall be reserved to ex- 
clusive exploitation by Filipino citizens and, therefore, 
foreign capital is considered a form of intrusion once 
this is adopted. 


56 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


MR. SUAREZ. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Suarez is recognized. 

MR. SUAREZ. Would the Gentleman have any objec- 
tion to going for the jugular by removing the phrase 
“ALSO ESTABLISH A POLICY TO” such that the 
proposed amendment would read: “THE STATE 
SHALL PROTECT FROM FOREIGN INTRUSION...”? 

MR. OPLE. Yes, I welcome the amendment which 
improves the paragraph, as a matter of fact, Mr. Presid- 
ing Officer. 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. 

MR. DAVIDE. Mr. Presiding Officer. 


scope of this article which is meant to be an article on 
social justice, in support of social justice for fishermen 
to something like a national policy on national security 
and foreign relations. So, I want to be more modest — 
keep the idea of this protection within bounds and to an 
extent that the State, without arousing false hopes and 
expectations, can actually endeavor to carry out. And I 
feel safer when for purposes of detennining the intent 
of this Commission, we really want to confine ourselves 
to protecting the territorial waters of the Philippines. 
Maybe someday when we have a real navy and a coast 
guard capable of policing the entire length and breadth 
of the country which is twice the coastline of the 
United States, then the construction of this paragraph 
can rise to a new level; it also means that tlie State has 
a duty to protect our marine resources and the rights of 
our small fishermen from foreign intrusion in the 
territorial sea. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER 
missioner Davide is recognized. 


(Mr. Regalado). Com- 


MR. DAVIDE. Just for the record, I would like to 
read the Article on National Territory that the Commis- 
sion had approved. 


• ^ intention of Commissioner Ople will onl 

include the territorial waters; it would not expand t 

h.vp a w- Philippines would sti 

have junsdiction. The article reads: 


The national territory comprises the Philippine archipe- 
ago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and 
a 0 er territories over which the Philippines has sover- 
ei^ty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, 
an aerial domains, including the territorial sea, the seabed, 
t e subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas 
• waters around, between and connecting the 

IS an s of the archipelago, irrespective of their breadth and 

pensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philip- 
pmes. 


. inquire from Commissioner Ople il 

y em onal waters” he would include the territorial 
s a over which the Philippines has jurisdiction? 


MR. OPLE. I would like 
Officer. 


to say, yes, Mr. Presiding 


MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Monsod is recognized. 

MR. MONSOD. May we just ask a clarificatory 
question? We are now including areas that could be the 
subject of exploitation by commercial fishing. Would 
the Gentleman include in the definition of Filipino 
citizens corporations of which 60 percent is owned by 
Filipino citizens? 

MR. OPLE. Yes, in accordance with the provision of 
the Article on the National Economy which very soon 
will reach the plenary session. 

MR. DAVIDE. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Davide may proceed. 

MR. DAVIDE. Just an additional question for Com- 
missioner Ople. By territorial waters, would the Gentle- 
man actually mean the internal waters of the Philippines 
as defined under the Article on National Territory 
which will not include the territorial sea? 


sh^lld rwd^*.^^‘ provision 

sentence? ^ "linute. May I please continue that 


MR. OPLE. Yes, without prejudice to any other 
section of the Constitution, raising its sights higher with 
respect to the protection of our territorial seas for 
purposes of national security. 


MR. DAVIDE. Yes. 


“y but whei 

we speak of the temtonal sea, this can extend I under 
Stand, to about 300 miles from the nearest base line 
under the archipelagic theory. This may modify th( 


MR. DAVIDE. In other words. Congress may have, 
subsequently or later, the authority to include in terri- 
torial waters the territorial sea itself? 

MR. OPLE. Yes, I want to confirm that, Mr. Presiding 
Officer. 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


57 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). So, may 
we have the proposed amendment with the deletion and 
the transposition duly taken into account. 

MR. OPLE. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. The amend- 
ment reads: “THE STATE SHALL PROTECT FROM 
FOREIGN INTRUSION THE NATIONAL TERRITO- 
RIAL WATERS WITH THEIR MARINE WEALTH 
WHICH SHALL BE RESERVED TO EXCLUSIVE EX- 
PLOITATION BY FILIPINO CITIZENS ESPECIALLY 
SMALL FISHERMEN.” 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). What 
does the Committee say? 

MR. BENGZON. We just want to ask some clarifica- 
tion, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Bengzon is recognized. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Quesada is recognized. 

MS. QUESADA. As we said earlier, we are referring 
particularly to the interest or to the protection of small 
fishermen. But with the statement “to the exclusive ex- 
ploitation by Filipino citizens,” is tlie Gentleman also 
not disregarding the interest of big fishermen in this 
particular provision? 

MR. OPLE. Yes, the emphasis is especially small 
fishermen. The position in which 1 see the bigger Fili- 
pino fishermen is relative to Japanese, Taiwanese and 
Korean intruders into our shores; they are the victims 
of social injustice. 

MS. NIEVA. Will the Gentleman give us one minute? 
We are trying to formulate or reformulate this in such a 
way that the social justice aspect will not be lost, as the 
Commissioner said. 


MR. BENGZON. The intent of this paragraph, 
believe, is to protect the small fisherman. 


MR. OPLE. I am absolutely at the disposal of the 
Committee. 


MR. OPLE. Yes, and the rights of the Filipino people, 
to whom the fishermen belong as a major group, to the 
exclusive use of their own marine resources that God 
has given them. 

MR. BENGZON. Then this is not really a paragraph 
that pertains to this particular Article. This should be 
a paragraph that pertains to the Article on the National 
Economy because it is wider in its scope. 

MR. OPLE. It does pertain, Mr. Presiding Officer, to 
social justice. It pertains to the rights of small fisher- 
men, but within the context of a policy to reserve the 
marine wealth of our own territorial waters, especially 
of our internal waters, to exclusive exploitation by 
Filipino citizens; meaning, in the majority of cases, 
Filipino fishermen. 


MR. BENGZON. Would the Gentleman have any 
objections if we defer this until we discuss the Article 
on the National Economy? Perhaps we could include 
this concept on the Article on the National Economy? 


MR. OPLE I think this is appropriately located as 

is. I do not thmk a nationalistic doHp., , ^ 

„+ihip with th<» policy would be mcor 

patible with the nghts of small fishermen esnecial 

when we are thmking of conserving thesreasilvTeplet 
tesources for the use and en^oyZnt 7 

men and of our own people. So, I do not believe it mu 
wait for another committee, dealing with nation 
patnmony, to send its report to this Committee befoi 
we act on this provision which has been under debai 
since yesterday. 


MS. QUESADA. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask 
some clarificatory questions of Commissioner Ople? 


MS. NIEVA. I think we are more concerned here 
with the protection of the rights of the small fishermen 
from foreign intrusion. We believe that the parts about 
“exclusive exploitation by Filipino citizens” belong 
rightly to the Article on the National Economy. How- 
ever, for social justice, we agree that the rights of the 
small fishermen should be protected from foreign intru- 
sion. So, we are trying to reformulate. 

MR. MONSOD. In effect what we are saying is that 
the marginal fishermen have certain traditional areas 
where they fish. These areas are not necessarily the 
areas that large-scale corporations can fish in. And, if we 
get the Commissioner’s original intent, areas v/hich are 
the traditional fishing grounds of marginal fishermen 
should be protected. 

With respect to the general principle of exclusive use 
of marine and fishing resources in territorial waters, that 
might be more appropriate in the Article on the National 
Economy. So, if we can insert a phrase regarding mar- 
ginal fishermen in the same section, we may serve the 
Commissioner’s purpose and then transpose the bigger 
paragraph in the Article on the National Economy 
section. 

MR. OPLE. That is precisely my point, Mr. Presiding 
Officer, that there is a full-bodied context to the rights 
of the small fishermen in this paragraph. Although we 
try to distinguish here between the small fishermen and 
the bigger fishermen, we might lose sight of a com- 
munity of interest between them in the sense that they 
have to share the same marine resources that should be 
reserved to the exclusive enjoyment of Filipino citizens, 
especially fishermen, and more especially, the small 
fishermen. What I am saying is that if we had inserted in 


58 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


the previous section the objectives of protection and 
conservation and development of our marine resources, 

I see no reason why we cannot transpose the same prin- 
ciple in a more nationalistic context where there is a 
unity of interest between the small fishermen and the 
big fishermen and the Filipino people as a whole. 

May I call your attention to the fact that the deep-sea , 
fishing fleets of the Philippines are just about gone. 
They cannot compete with Taiwanese, Korean and 
Japanese fishing operators who routinely, habitually, 
and with total impunity intrude into our waters, deplet- 
ing the marine resources that should be reserved to the 
exclusive exploitation and enjoyment of the Filipino 
people. So, why do we have to truncate this paragraph, 
separate the class context from the national context, 
just because we have to satisfy some needs or standards 
of division between the Committee on the National Eco- 
nomy and the Committee on Social Justice? I believe 
that a great part of the contextual meaning intended for 
this paragraph is lost. 

REV. RIGOS. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). The 
Committee is still determining the proper situs for this 
^endment. Let us hear from Commissioner Rigos 
because his amendment may have a bearing on this. 

REV. RIGOS. Mr. Presiding Officer, I do not detect 
any strong objection of the Committee to this proposed 
amendment. Perhaps, we can act on this proposed 
amendment with the understanding that should the 
tyle Committee find that it belongs more properly to 
another article, that said Committee be given the 
privilege to transfer it. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioncr Sarmicnto is recognized. 

MR. SARMIENTO. I personally believe that this 
section should not express the unified interest of small 
and big fishermen. I think this section should only per- 
tain to small fishermen. May I be allowed to explain 
briefly? 

Our small fishermen are complaining against big 
fishermen We have Filipino big fishermen who have 
modern fishmg technology with sonars, radars and 
n track down fish at the expense of 

small fishermen^ As a matter of fact, fishermen from 
San Sebastmn, Samar expressed that there are big fish- 
ing capitalists who are subdividing sea areas among 
themselves and are collecting tributes from fishermen 
who trespass. In Lilanga Lake, Zambales - again, this 
pertains to Filipino big fishermen - there are rich busi- 
nessmen who have been appropriating for themselves 
large portions of Lilanga Lake to develop into fish- 
ponds. The lake is 20 hectares wide in San Roque, 


Lilanga, Zambales. So, I personally believe that this 
section should not express the' unified interests of two 
sectors — small and big fishermen. I think this should 
express the interest of small, marginal fishermen. 

MR. OPLE. Mr. Presiding Officer, I am for conserving 
time and for conserving the efforts that have already 
been exerted especially on this subject by the Committee 
which has been working hard the whole day. If it needs 
this new line of thought that there should be no bond 
of unity between one upper crust and one lower crust of 
the same fishermen sector in Filipino society tor pur- 
poses of the Article on Social Justice, I would be amena- 
ble right now to saying that this protection from foreign 
intrusion shall pertain mainly to the rights of the small 
fishermen so that the provision will read: “The State 
shall protect FROM FOREIGN INTRUSION THE 
NATIONAL TERRITORIAL WATERS WITH THEIR 
MARINE WEALTH WHICH SHALL BE RESERVED 
PRINCIPALLY TO THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF 
SMALL FISHERMEN.” 

MR. DAVIDE. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Davide is recognized. 

MR. OPLE. If incidentally, this benefits the richer 
fishermen, then that is completely incidental. 

MR. DAVIDE. Would the proponent agree to some 
amendments without prejudice to introducing in the 
proper Article on the National Economy and Patrimony 
the bigger concept? If the intention is just to harmonize 
this totally for social justice, the proposed amendment 
would read as follows: after “resources,” insert a 
comma (,) and the following: INCLUDING PROTEC- 
TION AGAINST INTRUSION BY FOREIGN IN- 
TERESTS IN THE USE AND ENJOYMENT THERE- 
OF. 

So, that would leave the matter completely to the 
marginal fishermen. But it would also mean protection 
not only of the fishermen but also of the marine and 
fishing resources against intrusion by foreign interests in 
the use and enjoyment thereof. 

I used the word “interest” so it will qualify all kinds 
of foreign intrusion, whether it would be by a capitalist 
or whether it would be by a dummy. I wonder if that 
would be acceptable to the Committee. But we leave 
the matter of general principle on reserving these fishing 
and marine resources to Filipino citizens only in the 
Article on the National Economy and the Patrimony of 
the nation. 

MR. OPLE. Before I yield on this point, Mr. Presiding 
Officer, and I am so concerned that the Commission 
should now take a well-earned rest at the end of a very 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


59 


tough and exhilarating day, may I know whether the 
Chairman of tlie National Patrimony Committee who is 
here will agree to a clause or a sentence when the 
patrimony amendment reaches the floor that will em- 
body this concept of the exclusive exploitation by 
Filipino citizens of our own marine resources? 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Villegas is recognized. 

MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. In fact, 
it fits very well into one of the articles. 

MR. OPLE. On that basis then, I am receptive to the 
Davide amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer, unless it clut- 
ters up unduly this well-sculptured preceding sentence. 

MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Monsod is recognized. 

MR. MONSOD. We would like to sleep on this thing 
but we would like to suggest that perhaps, we can draft 
something that might express the concern of small 
fishermen in the seashores that was referred to by Com- 
missioner Sarmiento if we say: “THE STATE SHALL 
PROTECT THE TRADITIONAL FISHING GROUNDS 
OF MUNICIPAL FISHERMEN FROM THE INTRU- 
SION OF FOREIGN FISHING VESSELS.” 

MR. DAVIDE. That would not convey the fullness of 
the idea. It is not just shipping vessels but foreign corpo- 
rations, partnerships or associations or fishermen fishing 
in these areas. It is not intrusion by the use of vessels 
passing through or over it. 

MR. MONSOD. The intrusion of foreign interests. 

MR. DAVIDE. That is it. So, it is just to continue the 
original wording. After “resources,” add a comma (,) 
and the following: INCLUDING PROTECTION 

against INTRUSION BY FOREIGN INTERESTS IN 
THE USE AND ENJOYMENT THEREOF, meaning, the 
marine and fishing resources. 

MR. OPLE. Will Commissioner Davide consider an 
alternative amendment which I would like to propose 
on behalf of Commissioner Romulo and myself, as well 
as Commissioner Davide, if he is willing to associate 
with a somewhat amended version of his version? 

MR. DAVIDE. Gladly, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

MR. OPLE. The amendment will read: “THE STATE 
SHALL PROTECT THE SMALL FISHERMEN IN THE 


NATIONAL TERRITORIAL WATERS. THE STATE 
SHALL PROTECT THE SMALL FISHERMEN FROM 
FOREIGN INTRUSION.” 

MR. DAVIDE. Mr. Presiding Officer, the idea of my 
proposal is to widen the umbrella of the protection. It is 
not only protection of the interest of tlie marginal 
fishermen but also of the resources themselves. 

MR. BENGZON. Then that is not social justice any 
more. 

MR. MONSOD. That would be national economy. 

MR. BENGZON. That is already national territory'. 

MR. DAVIDE. No, it is not, because these natural 
resources are reserved for the marginal fishermen. 

MR. BENGZON. Not only for marginal fishermen. 

MR. DAVIDE. Not necessarily the marginal fisher- 
men. 

MR. OPLE. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I call the at- 
tention of Commissioner Davide once again to this 
formulation: “THE STATE SHALL PROTECT THE 
SMALL FISHERMEN IN THE NATIONAL TERRI- 
TORIAL WATERS FROM FOREIGN INTRUSION.” 
By construction, foreign intrusion refers to foreign 
fishing vessels with their superior equipment, and also to 
foreign capital or its agents. 

MR DAVIDE. I would propose an amendment: 
against FOREIGN INTERESTS. 


MR. OPLE. The amendment is accepted, Mr. Presid- 
ing Officer. In its latest permutation may I read the 
amendment, as amended: “THE STATE SHALL PRO- 
TECT THE SMALL FISHERMEN FROM THE INTRU- 
SION OF FOREIGN INTERESTS.” 

MR. DAVIDE. AGAINST FOREIGN INTERESTS. 

MR. OPLE. “AGAINST FOREIGN INTERESTS.” 
But that sounds slightly xenophobic. In a Constitution, 
one has to look for a buffer between intrusion and 
interests. 

MR. LERUM. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask a ques- 
tion. 

MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer. 


60 


THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com- 
missioner Monsod is>recognized. 

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION 

MR. MONSOD. May we request an adjournment of 
the session so that each of us can go back and draft a 
proposal along the same lines. 


MR. OPLE. Yes, I endorse the proposal, Mr. Presiding 
Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). The 
consideration is deferred and the session is adjourned 
until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. 

It was 7:23 p.m. 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


61 


R.C.C. NO. 51 
Friday, August 8, 1986 


OPENING OF SESSION 

At 9:45 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia 
Munoz Palma, opened the session. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is ealled to order. 

NATIONAL ANTHEM 

THE PRESIDENT. Eveybody will please rise to sing 
the National Anthem. 

Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem. 

THE PRESIDENT. Everybody will please remain 
standing for tiie Prayer to be led by the Honorable 
Gregorio J. Tingson. 

Everybody remained standing for the Prayer. 

PRAYER 

MR. TINGSON. Our dear loving Heavenly Father, we 
realize only too well that “unless the Lord builds the 
house, they labor in vain who build it." 

We are mandated to build a charter for our country 
that will stand the test of time and the changing tempers 
of men. We need wisdom, dear Lord, to do this task for 
we are but men with finite understanding and limited 
knowledge. 

We confess that we do not have the wisdom of a 
Solomon, the wit and brilliance of an Aristotle, the deep 
insight of Jose Rizal, nor the homespun zing of a Will 
Rogers. But with the evcr-availablc aid of the Holy 
Spirit, we now humbly beseech Thee not for tasks equal 
to our power but for power equal to our heavy task. 

Father in heaven, we are humbled by the words of 
our Sublime Paralytic: 

No matter how the government tries to renew itself, all 
of its efforts would amount to naught if there would be no 
corresponding change in the hearts of the people. 

Help us, dear Lord, to come up with a Constitution 
that will, in essence, continually remind our people of 
the timely words of the Prophet: 

If My people, who are called by My name, wUl humble 
themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their 
wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive 
their sin and will heal their land. 

♦Appeared after the roll call 


Help us to finish our new fundamental law in Thine 
own good time as we 48 Commissioners bear in mind 
that in things major we should have unity; in things 
minor, liberty; but in all things always to demonstrate 
charity. 

We adore Your Holy Name; we praise You for what 
You have done in and through us; and we petition Thee, 
loving Heavenly Father, for a greater measure of Your 
instruction, inspiration and sanctification. 

This is our individual and collective prayer in the 
wonderful and matchless name of our Lord and Savior 
Jesus Christ. Amen. 

ROLL CALL 

THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary-General will call 
the roll. 

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading: 


Abubakar . . . . 

. Present* 

Natividad . . . 

. . Present* 

Alonto 

. Present 

Nieva 

. . Present 

Aquino 

. Present* 

Nolledo .... 

. . Present* 

Azcuna 

. Present* 

Ople 

. . Present* 

Bacani 

. Present 

Padilla 

. . Present 

Bengzon 

. Present* 

Quesada .... 

. . Present 

Bennagen . . . . 

. Present 

Rama 

. . Present* 

Bernas 

. Present 

Regalado .... 

. . Present 

Rosario Braid . . 

. Present 

Reyes de los . 

. . Present 

Brocka 

. Present* 

Rigos 

. . Present 

Calderon 

. Present 

Rodrigo .... 

. . Present 

Castro de . . . . 

. Present 

Romulo .... 

. . Present 

Colayco 

. Present 

Rosales 

. . Present 

Concepcion . . . 

. Present 

Sarmiento . . . 

. . Present 

Davide 

. Present 

Suarez 

. . Present 

Foz 

. Present 

Sumulong . . . 

. . Present 

Garcia 

. Present* 

Tadeo 

. . Present 

Gascon 

. Present* 

Tan 

. . Present 

Guingona . . . . 

. Absent 

Tingson . . . . 

. . Present 

Jamir 

. Present 

Trenas 

. . Present* 

Laurel 

. Present* 

Uka 


Lerum 

. Present* 

Villacorta . . . 

. . Present 

Maambong . . . 

. Present* 

Villegas 

. . Present 

Monsod 

. Present 




The President is present. 

The roll call shows 32 Members responded to the call. 


62 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


THE PRESIDENT. The Chair declares the presence 
of a quorum. 

The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that we 
dispense with the reading of the Journal of yesterday’s 
session. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) 
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. 

APPROVAL OF JOURNAL 

MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that we 
approve the Journal of the previous session. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) 
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. 

MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that we 
proceed to the Reference of Business. 

Tffi PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) 
Ine Chair hears none; the motion is approved. 

TTe Secretary-General will read the Reference of 
Busmess. 

reference of business 

The Secretary-General read the following Com- 
munications and Committee Reports, the President 
making the corresponding references: 


sion of the writ of habeas corpus shall need confirma- 
tion of the legislature, and the nationalization of 
industries and the exploitation of natural resources. 

(Communication No. 493 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 


Position paper of the Filipino-American Chamber of 
Commerce, P.O. Box 7258, San Francisco, California, 
94120, U.S.A., signed by its President, Mr. Juan G. 
Collas, Jr., suggesting among others that the new Consti- 
tution shall embody some features that can attract 
foreign capital, that regulation of foreign capital shall 
be left to legislation, and that FUipinos be allowed dual 
citizenship. 

(Communication No. 494 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 


Letter from Mr. Norberto Navarro Caparas of 555 Kaun- 
laran Street, Barangay Commonwealth, Quezon City, 
proposing an amendment to Section 1 1 of the Proposed 
Amendment to the Article on Social Justice, to wit: IN 
APPROPRIATE CASES, LANDS OWNED BY THE 
GOVERNMENT BUT WHICH HAVE ALREADY 
BEEN CONVERTED BY OCCUPANTS INTO A 
VIABLE COMMUNITY SHALL BE DONATED TO 
THEM SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN A LAW TO BE 
ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE. 

(Communication No. 495 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Social Justice. 


To the Steering Committee. 


To the Steering Committee. 


COMMUNICATIONS 

^tter from Mr. Jovito A. Avancena of 25 Asteroid, Bel 
Air, Makati, Metro Manila, and three hundred ninety 
ot ers with their respective addresses, seeking the in- 
cusion in the Constitution of a provision obliging the 
State to protect the life of the unborn from the moment 
of conception. 

(Communication No. 491 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and 
Declaration of Principles. 


Tomas S. Tuazon of Motrico, La 

Hrh anriTh Protection of the law fo 

rich and the poor to promote national unity 

(^Communication No. 492 - Constitutional Commi 
To the Committee on Social Justice. 


Communication from Mr. Pelagio B. Estopia, proposing 
a parliamentary form of government with a bicameral 
legislature, that declaration of martial law and suspen- 


Letter from Mr. Edmundo A. Damatac of Lallo, Caga- 
yan, advocating that the incumbent President and Vice- 
President be given the chance to serve the six-year term 
for which they have been elected. 

(Communication No. 496 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Amendments and Transitory 
Provisions. 


Communication jointly submitted by the Bagong Alyan- 
sang Makabayan, Society of Professionals for the Ad- 
vancement of Democracy, League of Filipino Students, 
Kapunungan san mag uuma sa Masbate, Simbahang 
Katoliko sa Barangay, Kabataan para sa Demokrasya at 
Nasyonalismo, and Masbate People’s Organization, all in 
Masbate, suggesting among others the following: ( 1 ) re- 
moval of the U.S. military bases in the Philippines, 
(2) abrogation of the U.S.-R.P. Mutual Defense Treaty, 
Military Assistance Agreement, R.P.-Japan Treaty of 
Amity, Commerce and Navigation, (3) right to strike 
and collective bargaining, and (4) creation of a human 
rights commission. 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


63 


(Communication No. 497 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Steering Committee. 

Letter from Mr. Cesar P. Nimez of Suba. Lilo-an, Cebu, 
transmitting a joint resolution adopted by various civic 
associations and organizations of Lilo-an, Cebu, con- 
taining among others the following proposals: (1) all 
title/lease contract documents of foreshore lands issued 
during the Marcos regime be revoked or declared null 
and void; (2) all foreshore land must be turned over to 
the municipal government where they are situated; and 
(3) all foreshore lands cannot be leased/titled for busi- 
ness purposes. 

(Communication No. 498 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on the National Economy and 
Patrimony. 

Letter from Mr. Roberto Lazaro of Mandaluyong, 
Metro Manila, advocating that the Philippines be one of 
the regular states of the United States. 

(Communication No. 499 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and 
Declaration of Principles. 

COMMITTEE REPORTS 

Committee Report No. 35 submitted by the Committee 
on the Legislative re Proposed Resolution No. 411 and 
Proposed Resolution No. 428 informing the Com- 
mission of their incorporation in Committee Report 
No. 22 on the Article on the Legislative Department, as 
reported out on July 7, 1986. 

To the Archives. 

Committee Report No. 36 on Proposed Resolution 
No. 537, prepared by the Committee on Preamble, 
National Territory, and Declaration of Principles, 
entitled: 

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTI- 
TUTION AN ARTICLE ON THE DECLARATION OF 
PRINCIPLES, 

recommending its approval. 

Sponsored by Hon. Davide, Jr., Nolledo, Sarmiento, 
Tingson, Bengzon, Jr., Aquino, de los Reyes, Jr., Rigos, 
Rosario Braid, Quesada, de Castro, Nieva, Villacorta, 
Rama, Bacani, Colayco, Calderon, Suarez, Ople, Gascon, 
Villegas, Rosales, Azcuna, Foz and Garcia. 

To the Steering Committee. 

MR. ROMULO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Acting Floor Leader is recog- 
nized. 


CONSIDERATION OF 
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 534 
(Article on Social Justice) 

Continuation 

PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS 

MR. ROMULO. I move that we continue tlie con- 
sideration of Committee Report No. 34 on Proposed 
Resolution No. 534. We are still in tlie period of amend- 
ments. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) 
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. 

The honorable Chairman and members of the Com- 
mittee will please occupy the front table. 

At this juncture, may we acknowledge the presence 
of a good number of students from Maryknoll College, 
St. Scholastica’s College, St. Joseph’s (Tollege and St. 
Bridget’s College. So, we welcome all these young 
people who have come to see our proceedings and to 
show their interest in the documents that we are draft- 
ing for our people. 

MR. ROMULO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Acting Floor Leader is recog- 
nized. 

MR. ROMULO. When we adjourned yesterday, we 
were in Section 8 and Commissioner Ople was discussing 
his amendment. Inasmuch as he is not here, may I ask 
the Committee if they are willing to defer consideration 
of Section 8 and move to Section 9. 

THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say? 
Are we ready to proceed to Section 9? 

MS. NIEVA. Yes, we are. Madam President. 

MR. ROMULO. So, Madam President, may 1 ask that 
Commissioner Davide be recognized for his amendments 
on Section 9. 

MS. QUESADA. Madam President. 

the PRESIDENT. Commissioner Quesada is recog- 
nized. 

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, before we move 
on to Section 9, could we just have some clarifications 
on Section 8? Is Commissioner Ople here? 

THE PRESIDENT. He is not yet heie. So, we will 
defer it. 

MS. QUESADA. My concern. Madam President, is 
about a member ol the fishing -industry called the 
kasama or the equivalent of the tenant. They are not 


64 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


covered in the provision on the preferential rights given 
to fishermen who we refer to oftentimes as the small 
boat owners. Actually, we are leaving out a particular 
sector which, 1 understand, composes one of the largest 
groups of this sector. 

THE PRESIDENT. We will take that up when Com- 
missioner Ople is here. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog- 
nized. 


MR. MONSOD. We actually have a proposed sentence 
there which will be an amendment to the amendment 
of Commissioner Ople. We are going to have it typed 
and distributed so that by the time he arrives, we can 
consider it. 

THE PRESIDENT. So, can we then proceed to 
Section 9? 

MR. MONSOD. Yes, Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 


MR. DAVIDE. Thank you, Madam President. 

Q amendment is only to transfer Section 

0 the Article on the National Economy and Patri- 
mony which contains the general constitutional man- 
a es or directives affecting all natural resources in- 
cu mg agricultural, fishing and marine resources 
^ ject, of course, to the provisions on this particulai 
Article. But since this would involve the main thrusi 
toward industrialization, I think the proper situs foi 

ection 9 is the Article on the National Economy anc 
Patrimony. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President, 
ni^^^ president. Commissioner Bennagen is recog 

MR. bennagen. I object to the deletion of Sectioi 


MR. DAVIDE. This is not a deletion but merelv 
transfer to another Article. merely 


MR. BENNAGEN. But it *• 

Article on Social Justice. 


MR. DAVIDE. Not from the Constitution. 
MR. BENNAGEN. Yes. 


MR. DAVIDE. It is still in the Constitution. 


MR. BENNAGEN. I am interested in the provision as 
part of the Article on Social Justice for tlie important 
reason that agrarian reform as well as the other reforms 
that have to be done in other areas, such as fishing and 
marine resources, should be done in relation to the 
complementary processes of industrialization. We do 
not want to give the impression that the agrarian reform 
program is the terminal act. We want Congress to look 
at this as a part of the long-range process that ultimately 
would lead to some kind of industrialization without 
suggesting the type of industrialization that shall take 
place. 

MR. DAVIDE. That would not be the effect. Madam 
President, because I am sure that the Committee on 
National Economy and Patrimony will have to consider 
all these. So, an integrated development plan would 
necessarily be under the Article on National Econoiny 
and Patrimony, but I am sure it will take into account 
the provisions of social justice. 

MR. BENNAGEN. We have already dropped the word 
“integrated” partly because of its unsavory history. 

MR. DAVIDE. Even so, may I request that Commis- 
sioner Villegas, who is Chainnan of the Committee on 
National Economy and Patrimony, be recognized for a 
particular opinion on this matter? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villegas is recog- 
nized. 

MR. VILLEGAS. Madam President, thank you. 

As I said during the period of interpellations, 
the section is really misplaced in the Article on 
Justice because the very question of balance . 

agriculture, industry and other sectors is a ^ 

question that has to be addressed by a planning ® 
or the legislature at a very specific moment ot _ 
I do not think that it is a question of justice or . 

being committed. That is why, as I mentioned, . 

1 of the Article on the National Economy an 
mony states the following: 

The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent 
national economy. The goals of the national economy are 
more equitable distribution of income and wealth, full em 
ployment of humane, physical and technological resources, 
and sustained increase in the amount of goods and services 
produced by the nation for the benefit of the Filipiao 
people. 

So, that addresses already the issue of whether or not 
we will produce goods for the basic needs of the 
pie. It is stated very clearly that the goods, whether ey 
be agricultural or industrial, should be produced or le 
benefit of the Filipino people, with priority to e 
welfare of the poor. In fact, that is very explicitly stated 
here. In the attainment of these goals, all economic 
sectors shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


65 


and a broader ownership base of private enterprises shall 
be encouraged. So, the very question of how to develop 
the various sectors is already addressed in this Section 1 
of the Article. Tliat is why Section 9 is misplaced in the 
Article on Social Justice. 

MR. BENNAGEN. I do not think that the section 
just read refers to the idea of linking the development 
of agriculture, fishing and marine resources, specifically 
with the idea of the complementary process of indus- 
trialization. No reference was made to the concept of 
a balanced agricultural and industrial development. 
That is not the intent. We are merely suggesting that in 
the process of domg reforms in agriculture, fishing and 
marine resources, we should not forget the objective of 
meeting the basic needs of the people, and eventually 
also the process of industrialization. It has happened 
that in the process of developing agriculture, fishing 
and marine resources, the primary consideration has 
been to respond to the demands of the external market 
at the expense of meeting basic needs such as food. And 
so, we are saying that it is a matter of social justice that 
in the process of agricultural, fishing and marine 
development, we should respond to the domestic needs 
of consumption rather than the needs of the export 
market. 

We are saying that the proceeds from this develop- 
ment, as well as the proceeds from export, should be 
plowed back to agriculture and industry. But we are not 
suggesting a kind of balanced agro-industrial develop- 
ment because we foresee the time that the development 
will take on a different course, even including the 
tertiary sector. 


has something like 10, 15, 20 or even 50 hectares and 
he has five, seven or eight children? Eventually, we end 
up with very small plots that are no longer productive. 

So, we are saying tliat if agrarian reform is accom- 
panied by industrialization, the labor surplus would 
be absorbed by the industrial sector and would not 
necessarily result in fragmenting the already fragmented 
lands. 

MR. VILLEGAS. I always have tlie impression that 
the body is very clear that the agrarian reform program 
is not in any way incompatible with industrialization. 
On the contrary, a lot of people are talking about how 
former landowners who are now going to receive just 
compensation can spend their money on starting indus- 
tries and other nonagricultural activities. I think that 
was very, very clear in tlie minds of everyone. So, I 
really do not see any danger in having a section on 
agrarian refonn which would give the impression that 
we are not interested also in industrialization. I do not 
see the need to make that linkage explicit. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Our feeling is that it is necessary 
to put that here as a whole package. So, maybe we can 
put that to a vote. 

MR. VILLEGAS. Yes. 

MR. ROMULO. Before we put it to a vote, Commis- 
sioner Rosario Braid would like to be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid is 
recognized. 


MR. VILLEGAS. But a very explicit statement was 
already made, that all goods produced in the nation 
shall be for the benefit of the Filipino people. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes, but this could only refer to 
agricultural goods and not industrial goods. 

MR. VILLEGAS. No, “goods” mean all kinds of 
goods. 

MR. BENNAGEN. No, but we want a specific linkage 
of the development programs in agricultural, fishing 
and marine resources to meet our basic needs, export 
needs and the need for industrialization. What is im- 
portant is not to give the impression that agrarian 
reform is a terminal act. Without this provision, pending 
the deliberation on the Ople proposal linking agrarian 
reform to industrial development, one gets the im- 
pression. that we are only interested in agrarian reform. 
The history of agrarian reform all over the world tells 
us that the only successful agrarian reforms were linked 
with industrialization. 

I think that also answers the apprehensions of many 
of us with respect to inheritance. For instance, the 
question has been raised that what happens if one only 


MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Madam President, should 
Section 9 were to remain in the Article on Social 
Justice, may I offer an amendment which will read: 
THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE THE DEVELOP- 
MENT OF AGRICULTURAL, FISHING AND 
MARINE RESOURCES TO MEET THE BASIC NEEDS 
OF THE PEOPLE PARTICULARLY THE SUB- 
SISTENCE SECTORS AND THE PROMOTION OF 
SMALL- AND MEDIUM-SCALE ENTERPRISES TO 
ACHIEVE THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OBJECTIVE 
OF THE COUNTRY. 


medium-scaie enterpnses” from Section 10 and als 
to focus on the miportance of the so<alled “altemativ 
economy or ‘underground economy” of the unde 
pnvileged subsistence sectors. 


mix. IVWIVIULU. So, Madam President mav I ask that 
we vote on the Davide amendment first? ’ 

DavwLmend^^^^r *o resolve the 

to keen Serb ‘f the body resolves 

amendLnt T ^ the Article on Social Justice, the 

. . ® Commissioner Rosario Braid can be 

taken up. 


66 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


So, are we now ready to vote on the proposed amend- 
ment of Commissioner Davide? Commissioner Davide 
seeks to transpose Section 9 of the Article on Social 
Justice to the Article on National Economy and Patri- 
mony. The reasons have been explained particularly by 
Commissioner Villegas who is the Chairman of the 
Committee on National Economy and Patrimony. 


MR. DAVIDE. Yes. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the pro- 
posed amendment of Commissioner Davide with respect 
to Section 9 which has been accepted by the Commit- 
tee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment 
is approved. 


MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President, we are willing 
to transpose Section 9 to the Article on National 
Economy and Patrimony provided the idea already 
expressed in Section 1 of the Article on National 
Economy and Patrimony will be so expanded as to 
accommodate the spirit of Section 9, of course, on the 
assumption that the Ople amendment will also be 
considered part of the Article since that takes care of 
the idea of linking agrarian reform with industrialization 
in a very precise sense. 

MR. ROMULO. I ask that Commissioner Villegas 
be recognized. Madam President. 

President, commissioner Villegas is recog- 
nized. 


MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, I think it can be incorporated 
m Section 1 and we will welcome specific amendments 
when the occasion arises. 

THE PRESIDENT. So, the Committee on Social 
Justice can prepare its recommendation as to how the 
same w be drafted. How about the statement regard- 
ing Commissioner Ople’s amendment? 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President. 

the PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog- 


. MONSOD. We have also discussed with Commii 
sioner Ople the transposition of certain ideas introduce 
m le Article on Social Justice which are more apprc 
pnate m the Article on National Economy and Patr 
mony. And I think he is amenable to that provide 
a some ideas are incorporated in the Article o 
,, specifically refer to marginal < 

sma ishermen. So, that has already been discusse 
among the proponents. 

of manifestation the 

Section 9 to^ the [aspect to the transposition « 

should be considered wi,hd"aw„ 

MR. DAVIDE. No, it was accepted by the Cor 
mittee. 


MR. ROMULO. Madam President, will Commissioner 
Ople manifest that he agrees with the statement of tlie 
Committee? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized. 


MR. OPLE. Thank you. Madam President. 

I do manifest my concurrence to the Committee s 
proposal to transfer to the Article on National Economy 
and Patrimony the national context with respect to the 
exclusive reservation for the exploitation of our marine 
wealth by Filipino citizens especially the small fisher- 
men. But ahead of that. Madam President, if I am now 
in the appropriate place, in behalf of the Committee 
which has indicated its prior agreement, I would like 
to read a modified amendment of Section 8. H 
actually a joint formulation of the Committee and 
the proponent. After the clause “protection, develop- 
ment and conservation of such resources,” add tl"^ 
following: THE PROTECTION SHALL EXTEND TO 
THE OFFSHORE FISHING GROUNDS OF SMALL 
FISHERMEN FROM FOREIGN INTRUSION. 

With respect to the words “municipal fisherrnei 
and after taking counsel with Commissioner Rodrigo, 
we felt that SMALL FISHERMEN would be more 
appropriate because there are parts of the country, 
for example, in Bulacan, which might be understoo 
by municipal fishermen to refer to the “Propios or 
the municipal fishponds owned by the municipa 
governments for their income. 

So, if the Committee accepts that change, I would 
submit it. Madam President. 


MS. NIEVA. Yes, the Committee accepts. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de Castro is recog- 
nized. 


MR. DE CASTRO. Point of clarification. Madam 
President. In Section 8, we used the term “marginal 
fishermen”; now we are using “small fishermen.” 
Yesterday, I made a reservation to look into the 
meaning of “marginal.” If the honorable President will 
allow me, I am ready to explain this. 


THE PRESIDENT. Was it accepted by the Commit- THE PRESIDENT. May we know the result of the 
tee? Commissioner’s research? 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


67 


MR. DE CASTRO. It is not exactly a research. It is 
just getting the full meaning of “marginal” which was 
used as an adjective to “fishermen.” When we say 
“marginal,” we mean a margin close to the hmit; and 
more, particularly, in business it is referred to as 
marginal profit or marginal cost. But if 1 were to get the 
thinking is that the meaning of “marginal” is one living 
almost within the margin of the standard of living, then 
because if it is used as an adjective, such as in “marginal 
fisherman,” he could be a fishennan today but a laborer 
tomorrow because he is within the margin of being a 
fisherman or something else. So, if tlie Committee’s 
thinking is that tlie meaning of marghial is one Uving 
almost within the margin of the standard of livmg, then 
perhaps it may be used. My objection is the use of 
“small fishermen” and “margin^ fishermen” in the 
same section. I suggest that the Committee use the 
same term in this section. 

Thank you, Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. What does Commissioner OpIe 
say? 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, in the interest of style, 
I think we need not be bound to one uniform word 
that is repeated everytime the concept of a small fisher- 
man or a marginal one must be reflected. If Commis- 
sioner de Castro considers “small fishermen” as being 
synonymous with “marginal fishermen,” then I think 
the problem will not arise. 

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recog- 
nized. 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. Madam President. 

We will just address a few clarificatory questions 
to the Honorable Ople. 

When we speak of “marginal,” as correctly pointed 
out by the Honorable de Castro, it connotes the mean- 
ing of a standard of living; and when we speak of 
“small,” we are referring to size. Upon the other hand, 
when we speak of “municipal,” we are thinking in 
terms of a unit. That is why, for purposes of the record, 
it is necessary to give meaningful interpretations to 
these three terms as they are applied in the provisions 
of the Article on Social Justice, because the words 
“marginal” and “small” may be interchangeable but 
not in connection with “municipal.” Is my under- 
standing of the differentiation among these three terms 
correct? 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, I think, if we were to 
look for the widest common denominator to all of these 
modifiers of “fishermen” - “marginal” in the sense that 
he stands at the very margin of existence, he stands on 
the very edge of life referring to his income and the 


needs of his family; and then the concept of “municipal 
fisherman” which has all the jurisprudential support 
because this is really the technical term, except that this 
is geography-bound — then the common denominator 
would be “small fishermen.” It is in that sense that this 
word is proposed to be used in the amendment. 

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, is the Commis- 
sioner suggesting that we employ the term “small”? 

MR. OPLE. Yes, Madam President. 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villegas is recog- 
nized. 

MR. VILLEGAS. Madam President, when we talk of 
the word “marginal,” it is quite clear that everyone is 
thinking not of the act of fishing but the economic 
situation of the fisherman. I think that is a common 
understanding. As an alternative, the phrase “sub- 
sistence fisherman,” which was earlier suggested by 
Commissioner Rosario Braid, is completely unam- 
biguous. It is understood that one is referring to what 
Commissioner Natividad mentioned as “isang kahig, 
isang tuka.” 

MR. OPLE. I am willing to accept the amendment. 
Madam President, so that the word “subsistence” 
becomes the common denominator that I had spoken 
of earlier. 

MS. NIEVA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Yes. 

MS. NIEVA. As long as the small fishermen are 
accorded protection, we would abide by that word 
“subsistence.” 

THE PRESIDENT. So, that is accepted. 

MS. NIEVA. Yes. 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Madam President. 

the PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid is 

recognized. 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Would Commissioner Ople 
yield to a question on his amendment on Section 8? 
Would this include protection from commercial fisher- 
men in terms of complying with the seven-kilometer 
ban on commercial vessels? There is an existing ban 
on commercial vessels within seven kilometers from 
the shoreline. 

MR. OPLE. The seven-kilometer ban is an ad- 
ministrative law that more or less fixed an arbitrary 


68 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


legal distance from the shoreline. Although my under- 
standing of the seven-kilometer ban from the shore is 
that tliis is flexible because the coastlines of the country 
are not uniform in terms of the appropriateness of a 
seven-kilometer distance, the assumption is that in many 
cases, the fishing grounds within seven kilometers are 
most accessible to the small, municipal or marginal or 
subsistence fishermen and that, therefore, no heavy 
trawlers, whether Filipino or foreign, should be allowed 
to fish in those waters. In this respect, I am not sure 
that commercial fishing vessels of Filipino citizens are 
banned. 

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog- 
nized. 


by changing the word “from” to AGAINST. I was 
thinking it might be more emphatic. So, it would read: 
“AGAINST foreign intrusion.” 

MR. OPLE. I will have no objection, Madam Pres- 
ident. 

MS. NIEVA. The Committee accepts, Madam Pres- 
ident. 

MR. MAAMBONG. Thank you, Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Are we ready to vote on this 
particular amendment? 

MS. NIEVA. We are ready now for the voting. 


BISHOP BACANI. May I ask Commissioner Ople if 
his intent is really not to protect small fishermen even 
though they may not be subsistence fishermen? For 
example, m the case he mentioned in Zambales, I have 
been acquam ted with them having worked there. There 
are ishermen who are not subsistence fishermen in the 
sense that they are not “isang kahig, isang tuka.” They 
can be rather prosperous, and yet they would still need 
k intrusion which the Gentleman 

interest 5 ^ not be looking after the 

who wniiiH h portion of our Fhipino population 
intmsion u/ ^ io subsistence level if foreign 

thev arp allowed to continue. At present, because 

level yet ^ ^ ° ^ subsistence 

ople Madam President, the phrase “subsistence 
4. ^^nnld be used Uberally in the sense that it 
restricted to the poorest fishermen who 
npr,-^” -f existence day to day and who will 

mkf V ^ tomorrow. I think it is a 

liifp iK^ -7 io many of our fishermen in places 

a, Zambales the idea that they are rich fishermen, 
e are a king about varying degrees of self-sufficiency. 

commercial or industrial nabobs in Iba, 
a es. Some fishermen may be a little bit more 
oth&Ts, but by the standard of the 
sktA« ®°™”'®^‘^ial fishing vessels, they are all sub- 
k 5iim^ cnnen. And so, the intent of the proposal 

artnai ^ P®’^‘r°*ripassing with respect to real and 
actual nshemen m the area who fish for a liviug. 


THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the pro- 
posed amendment of Commissioner Ople and the 
others, which was accepted by the Committee? 

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President, just for clarity. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog- 
nized. 

MR. BENNAGEN. When we use the word “sub- 
sistence,” as a logical process, we also protect the in- 
terests of the small fishermen and this protection is not 
excluded by the use of the word “subsistence,” which 
we should look at as small but through a kind of socio- 
logical and historical process, could be progressive but 
still small in relation to an ever-increasing scale ot 
production. 

MR. OPLE. Yes. And we do not intend to penalize 
them for their efficiency and success. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes. 

MR. OPLE. And so, I think it was in that context 
that I accepted the explanation of Commissioner Bacani 
earlier. 

MR. BENNAGEN. It is also the sense that we should 
give the vvord “marginal” a sociological and historical 
process. What is marginal at some point could be 
progressive at a future time but still marginal. 

MR. OPLE. Yes, it is in that relative sense that we 
deliberately employ the words “subsistence fishermen.” 


MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President. 


MR. BENNAGEN. Thank you. Madam President. 


THE PRESIDENT. Yes. 


BISHOP BACANI. Madam President. 


MR. MAAMBONG. I wonder if Commissioner Ople THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog- 
or the Committee will accept the perfecting amendment nized. 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


69 


BISHOP BACANI. In relation to the use of whatever 
word, our Chairman, while we were discussing briefly, 
pointed out that this does not mean tliat we will not 
protect the other fishermen as well. We are just em- 
phasizing that we will protect the subsistence fishermen 
and, in the process, protect the interest of Filipino 
fishermen as well. 

MR. OPLE. Yes, that consequence follows, Madam 
President. 

MR. ROMULO. Can we have the amendment before 
we vote, Madam President? 

THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Will the Chairman please 
read the sentence. 

MS. NIEVA. Tlie sentence will read: THE PRO- 
TECTION SHALL EXTEND TO THE OFFSHORE 
FISHING GROUNDS OF SUBSISTENCE FISHER- 
MEN AGAINST FOREIGN INTRUSION. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this 
proposed amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; 
the amendment is approved. 

Can we now proceed to vote on the entire Section 8? 

MR. ROMULO. Madam President, there are still two 
registered speakers for amendments on Section 8. I ask 
that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog- 
nized. 

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, relative to the 
statement of Commissioner Ople that the word 
“municip3l which has a technical meaning cannot be 
understood or can be misunderstood by our common 
people, I propose the following amendment on line 4, 
on the phrase “particularly municipal fishing grounds”: 
delete the word “municipal” and m lieu thereof insert 
COMMUNAL; after “grounds,” delete the period (.) 
and add FOR SMALL FISHERMEN, so that that 
phrase would read: “particularly COMMUNAL fishing 
grounds FOR SMALL FISHERMEN.” 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog- 
nized. 

MR. MONSOD. We just want to ask Commissioner 
Rodrigo that if one were to read the entire first part, 
would there be a redundancy? We are talking about the 
protection of the rights of subsistence fishermen 
especially those from local communities to the pre- 
ferential use of the communal marine and fishing 
resources, both inland and offshore, and now we will 


also say “particularly . . .” What is the word, Madam 
President? 

MR. RODRIGO. COMMUNAL. I wiU have no objec- 
tion. 

MR. MONSOD. Would it be repetitive? 

MR. RODRIGO. My only objection here is the use of 
the word “municipal ” because “municipal fishing 
grounds” can be misunderstood. As Commissioner Ople 
has said, in my home province of Bulacan, his home- 
town, the Municipality of Hagonoy, owns fishponds. I 
know that the Municipality of Paombong also owns 
fishponds. I know that the Municipality of Paombong 
also owns fishponds called “Propios.” And so, when 
fishermen or people in Bulacan read “municipal fishing 
grounds,” they will think that these refer to fishponds 
owned by the municipality, which is not the case. 

MR. MONSOD. That is true. 

MR. RODRIGO. But if the Committee will agree to 
the deletion of the whole phrase, I will have no objec- 
tion. 

MR. MONSOD. We think we see the problem there. 
May we ask Commissioner Ople, from whom this came 
from in the first place — the other day when he wanted 
to make particular mention of municipal fishing grounds 
— whether the use of the words “the communal marine 
and fishing resources” in the previous line already 
covered the intention he had the other day? 

MR. OPLE. Yes. I do not think there is any intention 
to refer to the municipal “Propios” of the coastal towns 
of Bulacan, Madam President. On the point raised by 
Commissioner Rodrigo, the concern is really about the 
popular perception of what will mean in some parts of 
the country, including Bulacan, although I would like to 
assure Commissioner Rodrigo that this phenomenon 
known as the municipal “Propios” so far, according to 
my best knowledge, is still unique to the coastal towns 
of Bulacan, meaning, this is an innovative municipal 
income scheme which is not yet shared in other parts of 
the country. So, if there is any danger of popular mis- 
understanding, it will be confined to those towns in 
Bulacan that Commissioner Rodrigo has earlier 

enumerated. 

Thank you. 

MR. RODRIGO. Does the Committee intend to 
delete the whole phrase “particularly municipal fishing 
grounds”? 

MS. NIEVA. Yes, we are asking this clarificatory 
question. If the words “communal marine and fishing 
resources, both inland and offshore” already would 
include the idea of municipal fishing grounds, then this 


70 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8. 1986 


particular phrase may be deleted to avoid misunder- 
standing. 


MR. OPLE. Yes, I think so, Madam President. 

MR. RODRIGO. So, I modify my amendment to 
delete the phrase “particularly municipal fishing 
grounds.” 


MS. NIEVA. The Committee accepts. 


MR. OPLE. My only difficulty, Madam President, is 
that if the term “municipal fishermen ” which has a 
very rich legal foundation in jurisprudence, it being the 
precise legal term, is encountered elsewhere in the 
Constitution, will Commissioner Rodrigo still raise the 
same concern and anxiety? 


MR. RODRIGO. We understand the technical mean- 
ing of “municipal,” but let us not forget that this 
Constitution will be submitted to the people in a plebi- 
scite and they may not understand “municipal fishing 
pounds. They might think that these are fishponds 
belon^g to the mumcipality or these are fishing 

^ ^ municipality, which is 

not the intended meaning of “municipal” in this phrase. 

th^^nrnnn^^i Context, I am glad to support 

President ° Commissioner Rodrigo, Madam 


MR. RODRIGO. Thank you. 


MS. NIEVA. Thank you. 
accede to the deletion of 
municipal fishing grounds.” 


As we said before, we 
the phrase “particularly 


THE PRESIDENT. The whole phrase will be deleted? 
MS. NIEVA. Yes, Madam President. 


tion nf th there any objection to the d 

grniinHc” f ^ “Particularly municipal fish 

nnnp th ^®otion 8? (Silence) The Chair hi 

none, the amendment is approved. 




MR. ROMULO. Madam President I ask 

missionerdelos Reyes be recognized 

de los Re 


MR. DE LOS REYES Moh n • 

to propose to the Committ^ 

ambit of protection what is knn withm I 

.. 7 known as fish workers 

the kasama ng mga mangingisda. workers 

I discovered from Commissioner Quesada and a 
from some complaints of small fishermen that in 1 
same way that there is the sharing system or kasa, 


system in agricultural lands, there is also such a thing 
among the small fishermen who, it would appear, are 
actually the most exploited class of fishermen, even 
more exploited than the marginal fishermen that we 
were talking about. And this kasama fishermen who 
comprise 45,000 of the total work force of commercial 
fishing operations are the former subsistence fishennen 
who were dislocated by the monopolizing and superior 
commercial operations of the big fishermen who own 
boats and all that. Thus, they find no alternative but to 
join the operations as fish workers. Their daily income 
is only about P5.00 a day, because like the kasama in 
agricultural land, all expenses are deducted from their 
share and this sharing arrangement, which is prevalent 
in municipal and commercial fishing, does put these 
fish workers or the kasama or small fishermen at a great 
disadvantage. And this is true in Bulan, Sorsogon, 
Danao, Cavite, Laguna Lake, and others including 
Albay. 

And so, my proposal, subject to style, of course, is 
to include a sentence somewhere in Section 8 that fish 
workers shall receive a just share of their labor in the 
enjoyment of marine and fishing resources. We shall 
include fish workers in the same manner that we in- 
cluded farmers, regular farm workers and seasonal farm 
workers in the agrarian reform. Thus, we protect 
everybody. 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, will the Commissioner 
from Laguna yield to a question? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes, Madam President. 

MR. OPLE. If these are workers of commercial fish- 
ing vessels, should they not fall under the labor provi- 
sion of the Article on Social Justice? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Ordinarily, they should fall 
under the provisions on labor, but from my knowledge, 
they are not covered by existing labor laws. 

MR. OPLE. I would like to assert. Madam President, 
that there is no ground whatsoever why they should not 
be covered by labor laws when there is a very clear 
employer-employee relationship in commercial fishing 
operations. 

MS. AQUINO. Madam President, for the Committee. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Aquino is recog- 
nized. 

MS. AQUINO. The Committee would like to be 
enlightened on the basis of a specific and expressed 
proviso that would address this particular group. Speci- 
fically, how significant is the group that Commissioner 
de los Reyes is referring to in terms of number? How 
significant are they as far as the specificity of their 
demands is concerned because, offhand, our perception 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986‘ 


71 


is that they could be rightfully covered under “farm 
workers” or, parenthetically, the labor law might apply 
if there is an employer-employee relationship. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. But, as found in the book 
Countryside Report by Lusa Research Staff which 
focused on five major industries: rice, coconut, sugar, 
fishing and abaca, basnig workers alone or trawl workers 
comprise 45,000 of the total work force of commercial 
fishing operations and there are those who merely rent 
small motorized bancas. It is true tliat tliese workers 
could be covered ordinarily by the provisions on labor, 
but tlien there is no specific mention of small fish 
workers. Inasmuch as we are discussing aquatic reform 
in the same way that we have given protection not only 
to tenant farmers but to regular farm workers which, 
as explained, refer to wage farm workers, as well as 
seasonal fami workers, I believe there is also a necessity 
for specifying protection to fish workers. 

MR. OPLE. The term “fish workers” appears for the 
first time in the vocabulary of labor. This can refer to the 
workers assisting fish vendors in Divisoria, for example. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. According to this definition, it 
includes bugadores, refening to fish haulers; maniniklis, 
fish sorters; and Pescadores, fish haulers and sorters. 

MR. OPLE. So, these are workers in the commercial 
fishing industry. The fish worker, who is undoubtedly 
valid in the context of this survey which looks like a 
socioeconomic suiwey, has gained no definite meaning in 
law and jurisprudence, unlike municipal fishermen. But, 
apparently, they exist as a class; or better yet as a sub- 
class of the huge underclass of subsistence fishermen. I 
do not know if the concern of Commissioner de los 
Reyes should be accommodated specifically, or the 
Committee might want to record very clearly and 
definitively the intent of Section 8 as being able to 
embrace the problems and the need for social justice of 
this subclass of the fishing underclass. 

Thank you. Madam President. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President, although we 
can always place on record that Section 8 embraces 
fish workers, yet if it is not specifically provided in the 
Constitution, it will amount to nothing useful to these 
fish workers. These fish workers are usually hired on a 
temporary and contractual basis. They have no security 
of employment, for which reason their employment is 
hanging. Because of this, trawl owners maintain a firm 
hold over them. They are also being forced to do other 
jobs like painting and repairing of fishing gears without 
pay, and they are even obliged to dry fish for free. In 
other cases where the workers become physically dis- 
abled, the owner automatically retires him from his job 
without any compensation whatsoever, with no social 
security compensation. Therefore, although there has 
been no jurisprudence yet which states that there is 


such a thing as fish worker, I find notliing wrong in 
starting it now in this Constitution which we are pro- 
mulgating. That is why we are revising and amending 
this Constitution to inject ideas. And since we are 
already in the process of protecting all marginal people, 
all people who are on the subsistence level — we have 
given protection to industrial labor; we have given pro- 
tection to farm workers — I certainly find nothing 
objectionable in emphasizing also the rights of aquatic 
workers. 

MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President. 

MR. LERUM. Madam President, may I be allowed to 
ask some questions? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Lerum is recog- 
nized. 

MR. LERUM. Commissioner de los Reyes spoke of 
exploitation. Who are exploiting these so-called fish 
workers? Do they have employers? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. The owners of motorized 
bancas, the owners of the trawlers employ these people 
who are not given their just wage. 

MR. LERUM. In that case, they are covered by the 
labor provision of this section. That is why I ask: Who 
are exploiting these people? If the Commissioner says 
that their employers are exploititig them, then there is 
the so-called employer-employee relationship and this 
is covered by the social justice provision that we are 
talking about now. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. But even under the existing 
Labor Code, agricultural laborers are included, and yet 
this Commission found it necessary to classify agricul- 
tural workers as a different group. So, if the Gentle- 
man’s reasoning will be followed, there would have 
been no necessity to place in this report of the Com- 
mittee on Social Justice any provision specifically 
dealing with agrarian reform, because agricultural 
laborers, like those laborers working in big haciendas, 
sugar mills and agri-business types like Canlubang, for 
example, are actually covered by the labor laws. I think 
the Gentleman knows that very well because he is the 
lawyer of the labor union in Canlubang. But we still 
provided for a separate section on agrarian reform to 
emphasize the rights in particular of land workers. And 
now, this proposal is an attempt also to emphasize the 
rights of the small fish workers, because in our desire to 
help the marginal fishermen or those who actually catch 
fish, we forget the fish workers. 

MR. LERUM. May I call the Gentleman’s attention to 
what we have already approved. We have provided for a 
living wage, and since this class of workers is covered, 
then they are entitled to a living wage. Maybe the 


72 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


trouble is in the implementation of the provisions of the 
Labor Code. Maybe these people are not organized, and 
so they are subject to exploitation. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. They are forgotten. But if we 
place this in the Constitution, they will no longer be 
forgotten because our attention will be called to their 
specific plight. That is the sense. 

MR. LERUM. They are not really forgotten because 
we are trying to organize them. As a matter of fact, we 
are now going into the organization of workers in 
fishing boats. But always there is that apathy on the 
part of the workers that it is better if they are not or- 
ganized because if they are, they are afraid that imme- 
diately after organization, many of them will be 
dismissed. We have to remove this obstacle. But with 
regard to the Gentleman’s concern, 1 can assure him that 
these workers are already covered by the provision on 
labor in the Article on Social Justice. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Quesada is seeking 
recognition. 


MR. MONSOD. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog- 
nized. 

MR. MONSOD. We support the sentiment behind tlie 
proposal of Commissioner de los Reyes. Some members 
of the Committee, however, feel that once we start 
enumerating, we might be excluding. For example, how 
do we treat the workers in poultry farms? What about 
the helpers in sari-sari stores who are exploited by the 
owners particularly foreign or Chinese store owners? 
We can go on and on and we are afraid that we might 
then go into too much detail for a Constitution. 

However, I believe that the answer of Commissioner 
Lerum that they are deemed included in the Article on 
Social Justice might be adequate for Commissioner de 
los Reyes. 

THE PRESIDENT. How about Commissioner Maam- 
bong? 

MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President. 


MS. QUESADA. Yes. Thank you. Madam President. 

In the definition of fish workers, did Commissioner 

e os eyes also include the kasama ng maliliit na 
mangingisda? 

MR_ DE LOS REYES. That is precisely the bulk of 
these fish workers. 


a ff ■ ^ think this particular group would 

1 er rom the commercial fish workers because these 
asama ng maliliit na mangingisda are those who hire 
out their services to small boat owners, who may or may 
not own a boat and whose remuneration comes in the 
orm 0 a share in the catch after all the expenses in the 
production are deducted. This particular group, who 
would be the equivalent of tenants, are not covered 
by the ^bor Code because they are not considered 
workers but are called kasama. Is that then a part of the 
definition of fish workers? 


h f tv. is not only a part but tf 

u 0 the definition of fish workers. But I did n< 

anymore because kasama is usually ass< 
ciated with agncultural tenancy operation. 

MS. QUESADA. But they compose the majority ( 
what we call municipal fishermen. 


MR. DE LOS REYES. Precisely, Madam President. 

MS. QUESADA^ Municipal fishermen in the Philip- 
pines, as of the 1982 data of the Countryside Report, 
comprise 72 percent or 574,000 of those employed in 
the fishing industry alone. 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Maambong is 
recognized. 

MR. MAAMBONG. Thank you. Madam President. 

Will Honorable de los Reyes entertain a question 
regarding his proposed amendment? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Gladly. 

MR. MAAMBONG. I am constrained to rise because 
I come from an area where there are trawlers and purse 
seiners. 1 would like to mform the honorable Corn- 
missioner that in that area, most of the workers lu 
trawlers and purse seiners are paid under a share system 
in the sense that whatever catch the trawler or the 
purse seiner will get, they have a certain percentage. And 
while they are at sea, they are given subsistence and that 
is charged to their share. That is in general terms. 

There are also trawl owners whci really pay them 
wages, just like what Commissioner Lerum has said, and 
probably those persons are covered by the Labor Code. 

My question is this: Is the proposed amendment 
directed to those fishing workers in trawlers or purse 
seiners who are paid on a share system? And is the pro- 
posed amendment also intended to cover those using 
the same kind of fishing methods and who are paid 
under the system covered by the Labor Code? Are both 
these employees or shareholders of these fishing vessels 
covered? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. They are covered. But as I was 
saying, although it is true that ordinarily they should be 
covered under the Labor Code, the fact of the matter 
is that we concentrate our minds and energies on indus- 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


73 


trial laborers. The labor leaders do not have time for 
these small fish workers. 

MR. MAAMBONG. As I said, I am concerned because 
most of the people living in my area, in the towns of 
Asturias, Tuburan and Balamban, are actually working 
in these trawlers, and they feel oppressed also because 
in the sharing, they only get so much of the catch, and 
if there is no catch at all — sometimes they do not have 
any catch at all — they do not get anything. At the same 
time, the expenses which they mcur while they are on 
the vessel keep on growing every day, especially the 
subsistence; and that is why I also share this concern. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may we request a 
vote? 

MR. ROMULO. May we have the amendment. 
Madam President, and then the vote? 

THE PRESIDENT. The general concern seems to be 
that the matter proposed by Commissioner de los Reyes 
can be the subject of legislation, rather than being 
placed in the Constitution. So then, will Commissioner 
de los Reyes read his proposed amendment? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes, Madam President. Subject 
to style and relocation, it will read; FISHWORKERS 
SHALL RECEIVE A JUST SHARE OF THEIR LABOR 
IN THE ENJOYMENT OF MARINE AND FISHING 
RESOURCES. That is very simple. 

VOTING 

THE PRESIDENT. As many as are in favor of the 
proposed amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes, 
please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their 
hand.) 

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few 
Members raised their hand.) 

The results show 13 votes in favor and 11 votes 
against; the amendment is approved. 

MR. ROMULO. Madam President, there are no 
further registered speakers. I believe it is time to vote on 
Section 8 as a whole. 

MS. NIEVA. Can we have the last sentence again, 
because there have been so many changes? 

MS. AQUINO. Is there any definite formulation here? 

MS. NIEVA. Yes, he had an amendment. 

THE PRESIDENT. The amendment of Commissioner 
de los Reyes? 

MS. NIEVA. We would like to have the amendment 
of Commissioner de los Reyes again. 


MR. ROMULO. Having won a victory, he has dis- 
appeared. 

THE PRESIDENT. I have a copy. 

MR. ROMULO. Will Commissioner de los Reyes give 
his amendment which he just won? 

THE PRESIDENT. We are giving a copy of the pro- 
posed amendment to the Chairman. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. The new sentence will read: 
Fishworkers shall receive a just share of their labor in 
the enjoyment of marine and fishing resources. 

MS. AQUINO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Aquino is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. As amended by Commissioner 
Ople, the sentence will read: “Fishworkers shall receive 
a just share of THE FRUITS of their labor.” 

MS. AQUINO. Madam President,with due respect to 
Commissioner de los Reyes, without intending to over- 
turn the whole thing in the body, is he definite in that 
formulation because the impression we got is that he 
wanted it placed somewhere in Section 8 as a concept. 
Or should we place it as it is now formulated? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes, because Section 8 refers 
to marine and fishing resources. If we will repeat the 
words “marine and fishing resources,” there will be re- 
dundancy. That is why I said this is subject to style. But 
as reworded now, it conveys the idea that we sought for. 

the PRESIDENT. Will it be the last sentence of the 
section? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. It could be the last. No, I 
think it should be before the last sentence because the 
Ople amendment refers to intrusion of foreign invest- 
ments. 

MR. ROMULO. So, what is the amendment now? It 
seems to me we voted on something else. 

THE PRESIDENT. It is just in placing it; that is only 
the form. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. It is already the problem of 
Commissioner Rodrigo. (Laughter) 

MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. In the meantime, can we have it 
on the last sentence while the Committee on Style 
decides where to put it? 


74 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes, Madam President. MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes. 


MR. MAAMBONG Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Maambong is 
recognized. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, just a point of 
clarification. Are employers of trawlers included in fish 
workers? 


MR. MAAMBONG. Would it not dilute his approved 
amendment if we use the words “fishing workers” be- 
cause I feel that the term “fishworkers” is not really. . . 

MR. DE LOS REYES. What word does the Gentle- 
man want? 

MR. MAAMBONG. Fishing workers. 


MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes, that is the explanation. 

MR. MONSOD. Also employees of large fishing com- 
panies? 


MR. DE LOS REYES. Fishing workers? 

MR. MAAMBONG. Yes. If it would dilute the inten- 
tion, I will not press. I am Just asking this question. 


MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President. 


MR. DE LOS REYES. I am not a grammarian; if 
“fishing workers” is better, it means the same thing; 
it refers to fish. 


MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Point of inquiry, Madam Pres- 
ent. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de Castro is recog- 


MR. BENGZON. Can we not leave that to the Com- 
mittee on Style? 

MR. MAAMBONG. We can leave that to the Com- 
mittee then. 

Thank you. 


hav'!tted\po''nf ^ ' 

the president. No, those are just clarificatioi 

tioTK^ CASTRO. Or are we making some clarifi 

amp ^ worker is because there was 

upon? Commissioner Ople that we have vol 


THE PRESIDENT. Excuse me, let us have some 
order, please. There being some changes, I believe the 
Chair will submit the whole motion again to a vote, 
because we do not know anymore what has been voted 
upon. 

MR. ROMULO. Yes, Madam President. I think if we 
do not get the precise definition of “fish workers,” then 
the whole voting process would be misunderstood. 


MR. MONSOD. Madam President. 


SUSPENSION OF SESSION 


THE PRESIDENT. Yes. 

monsod. I think the Committee is being i 
styling in rewriting the sentence. W 

hpin t included because that might 

help to the drafters of the sentence. 

^ ^ question; Would work( 

ish cannenes be included in the word “fish worker 


THE PRESIDENT. The Chair will call for a suspen- 
sion of the session for a few minutes. And Commissioner 
de los Reyes will please approach the Committee so as 
to clarify this matter. 

It was 11:08 a.m. 


RESUMPTION OF SESSION' 


MR. DE LOS REYES T • j 

MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Maamboi 
recognized. 

MR. MAAMBONG. I would just like to ask 
missioner de los Reyes a clarificatory question. 


At 1 1:20 a.m. , the session was resumed. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed. 

Before we suspended the session, the Chair had 
already indicated its reaction to the voting - that there 
has been some confusion on the issues involved in the 
proposed amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes. 
So, shall we have Commissioner de los Reyes read again 
his proposed amendments? 

Commissioner Tan is recognized. 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8. 1986 


75 


SR. TAN. Point of order, Madam President. I am all 
confused in tliis forest of amendments. I thought we 
liad already finished the interpellation, and were sup- 
posed to be in the period of amendments. But then, we 
were questioning each other and amending and debat- 
ing. That is why we got confused. And tlien, this fish 
story came in. It did not pass the Committee; it was 
not in the interpellation and we are supposed to vote. It 
is all confusing. 

THE PRESIDENT. Where is Commissioner de los 
Reyes? 

MR. ROMULO. Commissioner de los Reyes has 
sought refuge somewhere else. 

THE PRESIDENT. We will have his proposed amend- 
ment as reworded or whatever, submitted. 

Will Commissioner de los Reyes please state his pro- 
posed amendment because the Chair has resolved to 
submit it to another voting in view of the confusion of 
some of the Members? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. May I ask the Secretariat to 
read what has been approved? 

THE PRESIDENT. What we have here, the first 
version reads: “Fishworkers shall receive a just share 
from their labor in the enjoyment of marine and fishing 
resources.” Then it was amended by Commissioner 
Ople, and it now reads: “Fishworkers shall receive a just 
share from THE FRUITS of their labor.” Is this last 
statement correct? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President, I just agreed 
to the Ople suggestion because I thought that this is just 
a matter of style. But if that amendment will cause 
confusion which will warrant another voting I will just 
stick by my former amendment and reject the Ople 
amendment. And I respectfully object to another voting 
because we have already won by a slight margm and we 
have worked hard for that amendment. 

THE PRESIDENT. So then the provision reads: 
“Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor 
in the enjoyment of marine and fishing resources.” Were 
there some questions being propounded by members of 
the Committee? 

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DAVIDE. I voted in favor of the amendment but 
on deeper reflection, I realize that it is rather very con- 
fusing especially with the clarifications made later. So I 
am seeking for a reconsideration of the approval of the 
proposed amendment. 


THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the 
motion for reconsideration of Commissioner Davide just 
to eliminate all forms of confusion over this particular 
amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion 
is approved and the matter is again submitted to the 
body. 

Is there any further question from the Committee? 

MR. MONSOD. May we request a vote, Madam Pres- 
ident? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. May I know from Com- 
missioner Davide what particular answer to the inter- 
pellation caused the confusion? 

MR. DAVIDE. The confusion arose out of the 
admission by the Commissioner that fish workers would 
even apply to the so-called employees of big business 
engaged in fishing. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Not canneries. Madam Pres- 
ident. 

MR. DAVIDE. For instance, trawlers or purse 
seiners, or employees engaged as such would be con- 
sidered fish workers. To my mind, they should be 
covered by the ordinary rules on labor legislation under 
which they would enjoy better benefits. Now, if we will 
reduce their category to that of an ordinary fish worker 
entitled only to a just share in the fruits of their labor, 
we would be treating them in a much lower category 
and, therefore, we would be reducing the benefits that 
they would be entitled to. 

My understanding of the original proposal for which 
reason I voted was that they would refer still to the so- 
called marginal fish workers who, in certain areas like 
Southern Cebu, may become, in effect, partners in a 
bigger enterprise owned by the privileged class. 

And so, I feel that we must have to distinguish the 
particular class of fish workers, whether fish workers of 
big capitalists or fish workers engaged only in marginal 
fishing. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Am I to understand that fish 
workers employed by big capitalists are not exploited? 

MR. DAVIDE. They are exploited, but we have the 
labor laws which will apply to them, and we have 
approved already the subdivision on labor. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. This proposal covers what the 
Commissioner envisions. The fishing workers in Cebu 
are suffering under the exploitation of trawl operators, 
but if it includes also big-time capitalists, what is wrong 
in stating that fishing workers shall receive a just share 
of their labor? 


76 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


MR. DAVIDE. That is the problem, because with a 
separate provision for them, it may be construed as 
making a separate provision for them with the possible 
interpretation that they are no longer within the scope 
of the provision on labor where the ordinary laborers 
really have greater benefits, advantages and privileges. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may the Commit- 
tee be recognized? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog- 
nized. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I believe that this 
matter has been discussed for almost an hour now. May 
we request a vote because all the arguments have already 
been ventilated in this body? 

MR. DE LOS REYES. It was discussed, and we 
already won by two or three votes. The discussion has 
been prolonged because there was a motion for recon- 
sideration. I already explained that this refers to 
kasama ng maliliit na mangingisda or simply kasamd 
I yield to the Chair. 


VOTING 


The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, 
especially of local communities to the preferential use of 
the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland 
and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen 
through appropriate technology, research, financial, pro- 
duction and marketing assistance, and other services. The 
State shall also protect, develop and conserve such re- 
sources. The protection shall extend to the offshore fishing 
grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. 
Fish workers shall receive a just share from their labor in 
the enjoyment of marine and fishing resources. 

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DAVIDE. I just would like to invite the atten- 
tion of the Committee that before ‘‘provide” in t le 
second sentence, there is the word “also”; and be ore 
“financial,” there should be “and adequate,” whici 
were not read. 

MS. NIEVA. The reason we removed the first “also ^ 
is that this was such a long enumeration that we fe w 
could cut some of the sentences. 


« amendment reads: “FISE 

SHALL RECEIVE A JUST SHARE FROf 
THEIR LABOR IN THE ENJOYMENT OF MARIN 
AND FISHING RESOURCES.” 


Those in favor of this particular proposed amend- 
ment will please raise their hand. (Several Members 
raised their hand.) 


Those against will please raise their hand. (Few Mem- 
bers raised their hand.) 

The results show 19 votes in favor and 13 against; the 
amendment is approved. 


MR. DAVIDE. It is all right, but what about the 
words “and adequate”? 

MS. NIEVA. Yes. It should read “adequate financial. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection 
entire Section 8 as read by the Chairman of the ® . 
mittee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the w 
section is approved. 

MR. ROMULO. Madam President. 


MR. DE LOS REYES. May I go out, Madam Pres- 
ident. I was about to answer a phone call when I was 
called. 

MR. ROMULO. Madam President, 
nized ^ PRESIDENT. The Acting Floor Leader is recog- 


THE PRESIDENT. The Acting Floor Leader is recog- 
nized. 

MR. ROMULO. There are no more sections under 
“Agrarian Land Reform” to be amended. I 
Committee if it would now like to take up the Co y 
amendment on the section on labor. 


8 f wb^p^ Perhaps we can now vote on Sectic 

8 as a whole. Madam President. 


MS. NIEVA. May I just comment that the complete 
title is “Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform. 


THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Will the Chairman read the 
entire section as drafted. 

MS. NIEVA. Yes, Madam President. 

The body will notice that since we had many enu- 
merations in the second part, we have changed some of 
the punctuation marks. Section 8 reads as follows; 


MR. OPLE. Madam President, apropos of this, may I 
reserve the right, together with Commissioner Bennagen, 
immediately afterwards, to propose an . amendment, 
consisting of a new section under the group of sections 
denominated as “Agrarian and Natural Resources 
Reform.” 

Thank you. 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


77 


MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I am asking the 
Committee if it would now like to take up the Colayco 
amendment. 

MS. NIEVA. Yes. 

MR. ROMULO. Since the Committee agrees, Madam 
President, I ask that Commissioner Colayco be recog- 
nized. 

THE PRESIDENT. That refers to Section 3 (a), (b), 
(c) and (d). 

Commissioner Colayco is recognized. 

MR. COLAYCO. Thank you, Madam President. 

I realize tliat since my proposal I have become 
persona non grata to some members of the Committee. 
I want to assure them that in pushing for this amend- 
ment I share their sentiment for the cause of labor and 
that I am acting from a firm conviction that it will 
improve not only the fonn of our Constitution but, at 
the same time, enhance the cause of labor. Surely, 
personally, I do not think that in pushing for this 
reform, I am doing labor a disservice. 

The body will notice that Section 3 starts like this: 
“It shall be the duty of the State to afford full protec- 
tion to labor,” and then it proceeds to enumerate the 
different rights which have been granted to the workers 
under current legislation. All these rights are enume- 
rated in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). When Commissioner 
Aquino interpellated me and asked me why this 
enumeration was felt to be necessary, she explained that 
it was the intention of the Committee to elevate the 
laws that have provided for these benefits to labor to a 
constitutional level. I have no quarrel with that, and I 
am sure that everybody else would like to afford to 
labor every possible protection available under our law. 
My reservation, as I expressed earlier, is that there 
would seem to be no need for this enumeration be- 
cause these laws are a full guarantee, as they stand, for 
the protection of these rights are already in our law 
books. 

But, as I mentioned earlier, we cannot ignore the 
growing complaint, if not attack, against the way 
we are formulating our Constitution, to the effect that 
we are unnecessarily using too many words, too many 
sentences, too many paragraphs which could be com- 
pressed probably in one or two sentences. And this 
particular comment is applicable to this present section. 
If the purpose of the Committee is to guarantee the 
rights heretofore granted by law to labor, we can do 
that in one sentence and, at the same time, accomplish 
what it wants us to do — to elevate the protection to 
labor to a constitutional level. And so, 1 came out with 
the first sentence which takes care of this. My proposal 
is for the first sentence to read like this: THE STATE 
SHALL PROTECT ALL THE RIGHTS GRANTED BY 
THE LAW TO WORKERS. That simple sentence is a 


mandate to future Congress. Do not touch; do not clip; 
do not diminish; do not repeal any of the laws which 
have been granted or which have been approved for the 
protection of labor. We cannot ask fora more emphatic 
and clear mandate to Congress to preserve, to maintain, 
to protect all the rights granted by the law. As to the 
last sentence in paragraph (b), the Committee wants to 
emphasize, among other rights, the right of labor to 
participate in policy- and decision-making processes 
affecting its interest. This is good but I think my second 
sentence goes even beyond that because I say, PRO- 
MOTE MUTUAL COOPERATION BETWEEN WORK- 
ERS AND THEIR EMPLOYERS — this is the important 
phrase - BASED ON SHARED RESPONSIBILITY. The 
words SHARED RESPONSIBILITY mean nothing else 
but the right to share in decision-making after consulta- 
tion; and if we want to go further, even the right to 
representation in the board. 

These are concepts which may sound new to us, and 
I understand the concern, even impatience, of my 
friend. Commissioner Foz, that we should grant to labor 
everything possible. But we are not yet attuned to these 
concepts, althougli these concepts are now applied and 
accepted in other countries. Nevertheless, sooner or 
later, we will reach this. We will turn capital toward this. 
If I may use a favorite Visayan saying which I have 
managed to learn: “Hinay-hinay, basta kanunay.” Let us 
go easy; we will reach that, we will get it; impatience 
will not help us nor will it help labor because we will 
only succeed in antagonizing capital. Little by little our 
capitalists or employers are beginning to understand 
that it is their duty to share the benefits of their indus- 
tries with labor. 

The last paragraph, paragraph (d), of Section 3 says: 

Regulate relations between workers and employers in 
a manner that recognizes the primacy of the rights of labor 
to its just share and the corresponding rights of business 
enterprises to realize their growth potential and reasonable 
returns on investments. 

This is a very nice statement, but I believe it can be 
trimmed down. At first — I do not mind telling this 
body that I burned the midnight oil just to compress 
this, and at the same time, to retain the purpose of 
the Committee — I was tempted to use the phrase 
“decent living wage” appearing in paragraph (b) of this 
article. The phrase “decent living wage” was first used 
in, I think, the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII entitled, 
Renm Novarum; living wage includes not only food and 
recreation; but social and religious opportunities not 
only for the worker but also for his wife and his family. 
But I did not think that this was enough and so I came 
with this expression: AND ENSURE THEIR JUST 
SHARE OF ALL THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR. 
The term “fruits” of labor covers not only their just 
wages and profit sharing, but also sharing in ownership 
because all these are fruits of their labor. 

So I believe that in compressing the four paragraphs 
into the three sentences which I am proposing, 1 was 


78 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


able to retain the substance and the intent of the 
Committee. 

I am, therefore, requesting the Committee to accept 
my proposal to trim down the wording of Section 3, 
and, if I may paraphrase the inimitable colleague of 
ours. Commissioner Uka: “What is one word less among 
friends?” 

Thank you. 

MS. AQUINO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Aquino is recog- 
nized. 

MS. AQUINO. On behalf of the Committee, first, 
we deeply regret that we cannot accept the proposal 
of Commissioner Colayco, although we view with 
enthusiasm the introduction of a new concept of 
shared responsibility” which we could eventually want 
to incorporate in the draft. With due respect to Com- 
missioner Colayco, we sincerely appreciate his concern; 
however, we are deeply disturbed by this preoccupation 
with brevity. It is already some kind of a short-lived 
atavism that is going a bit too far. The draft admittedly 
is too long but it is long because it precisely reflects 
the gains that have been made by the workers and the 
labor force in its thorough-going push-and-pull struggle 
or the assertion of their rights. Ln fact, the gains have 
been mstitutionalized in the 1935 and 1973 Constitu- 
ticms. The minute we scuttle that, it amounts to no 
other interpretation but withdrawal. We could talk 
ourselves blue in the face and insist for the record that 
there is no intention to withdraw or diminish, but 
after they have been virtually institutionalized in the 
two fundamental documents, it would amount to 
nothing else than diminishment. It is our concern, 
because we have been exposed in the public hearings 
with the labor group, that all of the rights provided 
herein are their barest minimum and irreducible 
demands. It is our fear that the minute we touch it, 
history will judge us unkindly. The future generation 
will judge us harshly. It is our concern that if we 
sacrifice the sanctity of the mandate in the altar of 
brevity, we might end up scorned both ways. 

MR. COLAYCO. May I answer? 

MS. AQUINO. Yes. 

MR. COLAYCO. I share the Commissioner’s concern 
for the laborers because earUer, before I stood up, I 
tried to sound her out. I am referring now to Commis- 
sioner Aquino. I tried to sound her out on how we 
could get some possible compromise, but she said the 
laborers would be disappointed if this Utany of rights 
is not spelled out. But without sounding critical, we are 
not a Code Committee here. We are trying to frame a 
Constitution and we have to observe certain cardinal 


traditional norms which have been followed in almost 
all Constitutions. 

The Constitution of India has been mentioned; but 
remember, India has millions and millions of people. 
We are only 55 million. That is why in the composition 
of the Constitution of India, there are several sections 
which are addressed to the different provinces and 
tribes, we might call them, which compose the entire 
nation of India. 

At any rate, I do not think that the statement that 
the State shall protect all the rights granted by law to 
workers is a withdrawal from a higher or better position. 

I think that this concrete, clear statement is a clearer 
mandate. Pardon me for citing a new statement on the 
question of brevity. The first quality, brevity, is to 
emphasize its uniqueness or distinctiveness in relation 
to ordmary forms of lawmaking. A Constitution is, 
after all, rather different from a municipal ordinance 
on sewers and drains. A short text, by its very simplicity, 
can also be more readily comprehended by the genera 
public, and this facilitates national consensus building 
which is one of the prime objectives of democratic 
constitu tionalism . 

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, on behalf of the 
lay people in this Constitutional Commission, I vvou ^ 
also like to express our sentiment after getting hold o 
the proposed amendment of Commissioner Colayco. 

We said that the Constitution we are drafting is 
to be a new one that would truly be reflective o 
sentiments and aspirations of our people. We wou i ^ 
this to be a Constitution which ordinary indiyidua 
nonlawyers, farmers, workers, urban poor, fislierm » 
fish workers, women, and even children — can eas 
understand, so that when they read the Constitu lO » 
they do not have to dig up the Journal of the Conimi 
sion to understand the intentions. 

Fo example, with the proposed amendment 
says; “THE STATE SHALL PROTECT ALL 
RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE LAW TO WORKEK^^^ 
I, an ordinary worker, would not know just 
these rights are if I have not even gotten hold ot 
Labor Code and if I do not know how to read as goo 
as professionals. So, I would not really know just wha 
the new Constitution has provided this time. 

In our prayers, we often say, “Let those who have 
less in life have more in law.” If a worker would not get 
hold of this provision, then he would very well ask, 
“What has the new Constitution granted me?” We say 
that labor has already enjoyed some of these rights and 
we would like to define and constitutionalize these 
rights which, as Commissioner Aquino has said, workers 
have won through their struggles. 

So I feel that we should not only be concerned with 
brevity. It was the Commissioner himself who told me 
one day that he had researched on the different Consti- 
tutions and found out that not only India but many 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


79 


other countries have expressed the provisions of their 
Constitutions in the way that ordinary individuals 
would be able to understand. When we say it should be 
something that the public would be able to under- 
stand, still this amendment is not something an ordinary 
individual would be able to understand. One would have 
to refer to law books, Labor Code and to the minutes 
of this Constitution to find out just what are these 
rights referred to. So, 1 believe we should not really 
be concerned about making this section brief. 

Romania’s Constitution had 105 Articles; Portugal’s, 
29 pages and 143 Articles; Spain’s, 58 pages and 169 
Articles; Sweden’s, 37 pages and 13 Chapters; Switzer- 
land’s, 26 pages and 1 23 Articles and so had many other 
countries’ constitutions. As a matter of fact, our Article 
on Social Justice is quite short compared to the Article 
on the Executive which has 1 1 pages and the Article 
on the Judiciary which has more. 

In the overriding concern about brevity and broad- 
ness, we may overlook the sentiments that went into 
the production of our work. So, we hope the Com- 
missioner understands our feelings about cutting down 
to size this important article for many workers. 

MR. COLAYCO. It is a good thing the Commissioner 
brought up my comments to her earlier because to be 
honest with her, on my own, I undertook a little 
research since I heard outside comments that this 
particular article was rather lengthy. While I am not 
saying that I do not share the Commissioner’s personal 
views notwithstanding what I told her and Chairman 
Nieva here who sounded that I had become almost a 
traitor to her, I find this particular section like an over- 
loaded small vehicle. 

Anyway, now that I have heard the comments and 
accepted the attitude of the Committee, may I make 
one very unusual and special request. Madam President, 
I hope that I will not be misunderstood here again. I 
understand that there are 1 7 members in this Commit- 
tee alone, so that they alone will be sufficient to throw 
jue to Kingdom Come insofar as this amendment is 
concerned. And I know, too, that like everyone else, 
they would not have any trouble about showing where 
their opinion lies. However, I feel that to afford a better 
assurance of freedom of expression of their choice, I 
would like to propose that the voting on my proposal 
be by secret balloting. 

the PRESIDENT. Does the Acting Floor Leader 
have anything to say? 

MR. ROMULO. Yes, Madam President. 

bishop BACANI. Madam President. 

the president. Commissioner Bacani is recog- 
nized. 


BISHOP BACANI. Before we vote, let me just also 
add these two notes: First, post factum after what we 
have done in the provision on agrarian reform which is 
also lengthy, to cut down this section on labor would 
now make its place in the Constitution so dispro- 
portionately small. Second, I am not a constitutional 
lawyer myself, but it seems to me tliat the cardinal 
rule in the making of a constitution should be its 
responsiveness to the people. 1 do not know whether 
we should follow a hard-and-fast rule regarding brevity 
and conciseness. I thmk the principle here should be 
rather the common good or the common welfare. And 
it does not seem tliat the common welfare is better 
served by making this already brief section briefer 
still. 

Thank you, Madam President. 

THE president. Commissioner Lerum is recog- 
nized. 

MR. LERUM. May I be allowed to ask Commissioner 
Colayco some questions? I understand that his purpose 
in proposing this amendment is to condense the provi- 
sion of tlie proposed section which appears on the left 
of his proposal. Is that correct? 

MR. COLAYCO. That is correct. Madam President. 

MR. LERUM. In other words, as far as the Commis- 
sioner is concerned, he does not object to any provision 
appearing on the left of his proposal, but his only 
intention is to condense the same in just a few words. 
Is that correct? 

MR. COLAYCO. That is correct, I have no objection 
to the substance. 

MR. LERUM. So what is the use of a secret voting 
now, just for the purpose of condensing? 

MR. COLAYCO. No, I mean there may be members 
of the Committee who may have their own opinion 
about this different from the other members of the 
Committee and the same with the rest of the Commis- 
sioners here. 

MR. LERUM. Does the Commissioner mean to tell 
us that there are some Committee members who are 
afraid to expose their vote? 

MR. COLAYCO. No, I am not saying that. 

MR. LERUM. And also some Members of the Com- 
mission who are also afraid to express their vote in 
public? 

MR. COLAYCO. I am not saying that. 


80 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


MR. LERUM. I am very blunt about this because I 
want to be very clear about this portion. We are here 
representing our own sectors, and it is only correct that 
our sectors should know how we voted. 

MR. ROMULO. Madam President. 


MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President, before we 
proceed to vote, may I ask Commissioner Colayco one 
or two questions? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de los Reyes may 
proceed. 


THE PRESIDENT. The Acting Floor Leader is recog- 
cognized. 

MR. ROMULO. As an observation during our caucus, 
if the body will recall, we did agree and approve that 
where the Committee does not accept an amendment, 
one may ask for a secret balloting. 

THE PRESIDENT. Yes. 

Believing that the request of Commissioner Colayco is 
meritorious, the Chair declares that such request is 
granted and that the voting on this proposed amend- 
ment will be done by ballot. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President. 

President, I am making a 
recor at am against secret voting on this proposal. 

president. Commissioner Sarmiento is recog- 


MR. DE LOS REYES. The amendment says; “THE 
STATE SHALL PROTECT ALL THE RIGHTS 
GRANTED BY THE LAW.” In other words, this refers 
to existing laws and laws that may be enacted. 

MR. COLAYCO. That is correct. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Therefore, these laws could 
also be repealed or amended. And if we amend these 
laws, we will lose all these rights enumerated in Section 
3 as proposed by the Committee. 

MR. COLAYCO. That is correct. That is why my pro- 
posal says: THE STATE SHALL PROTECT ALL THE 
RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE LAW. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. For example, there is a law 
which allows the workers to strike or to engage in 
concerted activities, then another law can be passed 
to repeal those rights. 

MR. COLAYCO. Not if this sentence is approved. 


vote. Madam Presiden 

tie y speak against the Colayco amendment? 
pr<K^^ president. Commissioner Sarmiento m< 

MR. SARMIENTO. This is from one who is not 
member of the Committee on Social Justice. 

Madam President, the classic formula in constitutio 
mg is that a constitution should be clear, conci 
an comprehensive. But that classic formula should n 
A ^ dogma. Constitution-making should re 
no” 1 times, to the clamor of tl 

is that rights should be enumerat( 
MoH and satisfaction. For instanc 

iirharT* resident, I was with a group of workers ai 

thev leamlri^tv. happy wh< 

wis " 

nate all these rightsTouW Jo 

unhappy. That to Cm ’ 

Dogmas and foCulas\oul7°'‘ ^ 

the labors, the w^k of JusJke ^ 

also to consider the clamor the wishP^°V^ appeal to hi 

me Wishes of our people. 

Thank you. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Please distribute the baiiots. 


MR. DE LOS REYES. Therefore, no law can be 
passed which shall remove all these rights? 

MR. COLAYCO. That is correct. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. That will take a constitutional 
amendment to remove or to take away from the 
laborers all these enumerated rights. 

MR. COLAYCO. That is correct. 

MR. FOZ. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Foz is recog- 
nized. 

MR. FOZ. I would like to oppose the amendment, 
and may I make a few statements in connection with 
that. 

The Colayco amendment would give primacy to 
legislative enactments by saying that: “THE STATE 
SHALL PROTECT ALL THE RIGHTS GRANTED 
by THE LAW TO THE WORKERS.” 

As a matter of fact, the amendment here even has 
footnotes referring to the specific laws which the 
provision or the amendment would like the rights 
granted to be preserved. It bothers me because it would 
seem that the existing laws regarding these rights of 
labor might not at all be subject to repeal or even to 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


81 


amendment. In other words, there is an element here in 
the amendment that would make it difficult for Con- 
gress even to change what is now provided in existing 
laws. 

If the Constitution would not specify the rights of 
labor, tlien what is the use of such a provision? We 
might as well have no provision at all and just depend 
on Congress to provide whatever are or should be the 
rights of labor. 

I would like to remind my colleagues here that if we 
approve these amendments as proposed, then we would 
do away not only with paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), 
but also with (a). This is an amendment by substitution 
to the entire section on labor. 

Thank you, Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Do all Commissioners have copies 
of the provisions of Section 3 as formulated by the 
Committee and which are sought to be substituted by 
Commissioner Colayco? 

MR . ROMULO. Yes, Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Now in voting, may I request 
some assistance from the members of the Committee. 
What would they desire? Shall we vote separately for 
each of the sentences or shall we just vote for the entire 
substitution? 

MS. NIEVA. I think it is the entire article. 

MR. COLAYCO. It is the entire amendment. Madam 
President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The body will vote on the entire 
amendment by substitution of Commissioner Colayco 
which reads: “THE STATE SHALL PROTECT ALL 
THE RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE LAW TO WORK- 
ERS PROMOTE MUTUAL COOPERATION BE- 
TWEEN THEM AND THEIR EMPLOYERS BASED 
ON SHARED RESPONSIBILITY, AND ENSURE 
THEIR JUST SHARE IN THE FRUITS OF THEIR 
LABOR ” If approved, it will substitute for Section 3, 
paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Committee’s 

draft. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam Chairman, if we are 
for the amendment, we vote yes; and if we are against 
the amendment, we vote no. Is that it? 

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, if the Commissioner is for 
the proposed amendment of Commissioner Colayco, 
put yes; if he is against, put no. 

VOTING 

this juncture, ballot forms were distributed to 
the Commissioners. After the ballots were filled out, 
the same were submitted to the Secretary-General. 


THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary-General says there 
are 45 Commissioners in the session haU. 

MR. LERUM. Madam President, if the Secretary- 
General is looking for one ballot, I have it here and 
my vote is no. 

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL. We request the Com- 
missioner to submit his ballot. 

THE PRESIDENT. The results of the voting show 13 
votes in favor and 31 against; the proposed Colayco 
amendment is lost. 

MR. ROMULO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Acting Floor Leader is recog- 
nized. 

MR. ROMULO. We have not voted nor have we had 
aniendments to Section 3 (c) and (d). We have registered 
speakers here for amendments on (c) and (d). However, 

I recall that before we took up this section on labor. 
Commissioner Ople had reserved his right to propose 
an amendment to Section 8. In view of the hour, I 
wonder if the Committee would allow that we take 
up that new section of Commissioner Ople; then after 
lunch we go back to Section 3 . 

May we hear from the Committee? 

THE PRESIDENT. What is the proposed amendment 
of Commissioner Ople? 

MR. ROMULO. He is ready to present his amend- 
ment to Section 8. 

MR. OPLE. Am I recognized, Madam President? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized. 

MR. OPLE. This is actually a proposed new state- 
ment which probably can be another section imme- 
diately following Section 8. The proponents besides 
myself are: Commissioners Bennagen, de los Reyes, 
Romulo and Bengzon. It probably can be called the 
“industrialization statement” under agrarian reform 
and will replace Section 9 which, by agreement, has 
just been transposed to the Article on the National 
Economy and Patrimony. It reads as follows: THE 
STATE SHALL REDIRECT IDLE CAPITAL IN LAND 
UNLOCKED THROUGH AGRARIAN REFORM TO- 
WARDS ACCELERATED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP- 
MENT AND EMPLOYMENT CREATION. BONDS OR 
OTHER FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ISSUED AS 
PAYMENT FOR LANDS UNDER SECTION 5 OF 
THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE HONORED AS EQUITY 
IN GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS OF THEIR 
CHOICE. 


82 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


May I explain very briefly the principle behind this. 
Agrarian reform has a tremendous synergy: (1) it can 
liberate the tiller from the bondage of the soil; and 
(2) it can accelerate industrialization and employment 
expansion. 

Accelerated mdustrialization is the other major 
goal of agrarian reform in modem times. However, 
landowners whose lands are expropriated find that after 
losing their lands, the bonds issued to them as payment 
by the government are next to useless. This new section 
will ensure that these bonds are actually converted into 
dynamic new capital for industrial growth and ex- 
pansion of job opportunities. 

And so, I ask that the Committee consider this pro- 
posal, Madam President. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, may we 
request that copies of that proposal be distributed to 
the Members of the Commission. 


THE PRESIDENT. Have copies been distributed? 

MR. BENGZON. Copies have been distributed yester- 
day. 


MR. SARMIENTO. We have no copies yet. 

Secretariat to reproduce 

the text of the amendment? 


THE PRESIDENT. Shall we give the 
to deliberate on this particular proposed 


Committee time 
amendment? 


MR. BENGZON. Madam President, the Committee 
would hke to ask some questions, in addition to the 
observations made. 


THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed. 

MR. BENGZON. Is it also the intention to allow that 
these bonds, if bonds are indeed paid, be used for pay- 
ment of taxes or loans from government corporations? 

MR. OPLE. This is already an existing policy. How- 
ever, am sorry to report that its implementation has 
been extremely erratic. 


MR. BENGZON So :c .u • x ^ xv 

omonHmont ‘ j j- • ’ ^ mtentiou of tY 

has already Uculater" *° Comniissiora 


pos*fd ■ sfcton, bondrwh“hToi!Ilan ‘1'“ 

percent of the payment to a landowner''cove"red S"ant 
reform (the remamder being cash) wUl be raised to t 
more senous level as a negotiable instrument. 

However, in the text of this proposed araendmen 
what is given pnde of place is the role of this nev 


capital that should be honored as equity or shares of 
stock in government investments of their own choice. 

MR. JAMIR. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Jamir is recog- 
nized. 

MR. JAMIR. May we request that we be furnished 
copies of the proposal before any further interpella- 
tions, so we can follow intelligently? 

THE PRESIDENT. We have already instructed the 
Secretariat to reproduce copies. 

MR. OPLE. If the Committee so desires, we can wait 
until the Secretariat delivers copies of the text. May I 
point out that the Committee had been furnished copies 
of this proposed amendment ahead of time. I hope the 
Committee confirms this. 

, MR. SUAREZ. Yes, the Committee itself had been 
furnished copies of his proposal. Madam President, 
but I doubt if the other Members had been furnished. 

MR. OPLE. May I know the pleasure of the Acting 
Floor Leader while waiting for the copies of the pro- 
posed amendment? Would he like to propose some 
other activity for the Commission? 

MR. ROMULO. Yes, I propose that we have lunch. 
Madam President. 

MR. OPLE. I support the proposal, Madam President. 


SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

THE PRESIDENT. In order to afford the Members ari 
opportunity to go over the draft, the Chair suspends the 
session for lunch. We will resume at 2:30 p.m. 

It was 12:21 p.m. 


RESUMPTION OF SESSION 

At 2:43 p.m., the session was resumed. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed. 

May we ask the honorable Chairman and members 
of the Committee on Social Justice to please occupy the 
front seats. 

May we know from the Floor Leader if the Com- 
mittee is now ready to react to the proposed amend- 
ment of Commissioner Ople. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commis- 
sioner Ople be recognized. 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


83 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized. 

MR. OPLE. Thank you. Madam President. 

I think copies of this proposed amendment in its 
latest permutation have already been circulated by the 
Secretariat. 

May I identify the proponents of this amendment: 
Commissioners Rustico de los Reyes, Ricardo Roniulo, 
Jose Bengzon, Ponciano Bennagen, Adolfo Azcuna, 
Florenz Regalado, Christian Monsod and Regalado 
Maambong. 

The amendment reads as follows: SECTION 9. THE 
STATE SHALL PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO LAND- 
OWNERS TO INVEST THE PROCEEDS OF THE 
AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM SO AS TO PRO- 
MOTE INDUSTRIALIZATION, EMPLOYMENT 
CREATION AND PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC 
SECTOR ENTERPRISES. FINANCIAL INSTRU- 
MENTS USED AS PAYMENT FOR LANDS SHALL 
BE HONORED AS EQUITY IN SUCH ENTERPRISES 
OF THEIR CHOICE. 

This amendment may be denominated as the indus- 
trialization provision of agrarian reform. I think it fills 
a need in the Article on Social Justice in the sense that 
industrialization is really the other major goal of 
agrarian reform. And earlier on we talked about the 
power of synergy mherent in agrarian reform and, for 
that matter, social justice as a whole to liberate the tiller 
from tlie bondage of the soil and also to release idle 
private capital now locked in the antiquated land 
system, so that it becomes available for industrialization 
and employment expansion. We all know, those who 
have taken a glance at the history of land reform in 
Japan, Taiwan and Korea, that the economic miracles 
that have taken place in tliose countries and have 
compelled the admiration of the whole world, to a 
large extent, were rooted in the earlier land reform 
program pursued by their governments. 

And so that is the reason for this proposed new 
Section 9, Madam President. I would like to seek the 
Committee s approval of this amendment as now 

reworded. 

MR. BENGZON. Madam President. 

the president. The Committee may please pro- 
ceed. 

MR. BENGZON. The Committee accepts the amend- 
ment. 

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, just a question 
for clarification. What is the meaning of “PROCEEDS” 
on line 3? 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, “PROCEEDS” really 
refer to the proceeds that the landowners will recover 
through a just compensation program. 


BISHOP BACANI. This is, therefore, the payment of 
the land? 

MR. OPLE. Yes, Madam President. 

BISHOP BACANI. Thank you. 

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog- 
nized. 

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, I would like to 
ask a few questions, for clarification in the record. 

The Commissioner will remember tliat he invited me 
to coauthor this proposal; and I said I like the objective 
of the proposal, but I was sorry I could not affix my 
signature because I wanted a clarification of the last 
sentence which reads: “FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS 
ISSUED AS PAYMENT FOR LANDS SHALL BE 
HONORED AS EQUITY IN SUCH ENTERPRISES 
OF THEIR CHOICE.” When I read the sentence, I 
immediately remembered the “Land Bonds” under the 
Marcos regime. The landowners, from whom the land 
was taken, were paid mostly in “Land Bonds,” redeem- 
able after 20 years. Does this last sentence mean that 
such kind of bonds come under the meaning of “FINAN- 
CIAL INSTRUMENTS” issued as payment for lands? 

MR. OPLE. Yes, Madam President. 

MR. RODRIGO. But we already burned our fingers 
with those “Land Bonds” during the Marcos regime. 
Is there a difference between these financial instruments 
provided for in this proposed section and the “Land 
Bonds” issued during the Marcos regime as payment 
for lands which were covered by land reform? 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, financial instruments 
do refef to bonds as a mode of payment for lands 
covered by land reform. May I explain briefly that 
under P.D. No. 27, which placed all com and rice lands 
under land reform, the mode of payment is 10 percent 
in cash and 90 percent in bonds. In Taiwan for rural 
land reform only, it is 70 percent in bonds and 30 per- 
cent in shares of stock in government corporations; 
and for urban land reform, there is a stipulation, if I 
remember right, of a 60-percent cash recovery for the 
landowner. 

The last sentence in this proposed amendment will 
precisely correct the situation earlier complained of 
by Commissioner Rodrigo. 

MR. RODRIGO. Not only by me. Madam President. 

MR. OPLE. Yes, by many thousands of landowners 
who feel that they were gypped by the government. 
After havmg surrendered their lands for cash bonds, 
they later found out that the cash bonds did not have 


84 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


the utility which they were made to believe they had. 
For example, although I knew that there were circulars 
sent to the government banks saying, “Please honor 
Land Bank bonds as collaterals for loans”; or “Please 
honor Land Bank bonds as offset payments for taxes 
or for arrears that have been incurred in previous loans,” 
most of the boards of directors of government financial 
institutions did not honor those bonds, pleading as a 
reason their financial straits in which they found them- 
selves at the time. 

So, the last sentence here supporting the principles 
of the linkage between land reform and industrialization 
in the first part seeks to mandate the State or Congress, 
if we Uke, in the future to make sure that landowners 
who will lose their lands to the tillers under this land 
reform program will be given financial instruments in 
payment for their lands, including bonds that will have 
real utility. One way of giving more strategic develop- 
ment values to such bonds is to insure right here that 
these bonds will be honored as equity in public enter- 
prises chosen by the landowners themselves. 

May I give an example. There are not too many 
^yemment corporations here making money now. In 
^wan, it is the opposite situation because almost all 
the government corporations are highly profitable. And 
so, it is also profitable for landowners that have been 
divested of their landholdings to put their bonds in 
ese profitable corporations. But in our country there 
are not too many of these. There are, however, some 
T vehicles for investments. One example is the 

n 3nk of the Philippines which in 1985, when most 
anks did not make money, made more than P400 
^ ion in net earnings. That is the right vehicle imme- 
lately available for a bondholder, like Commissioner 
8oc Rodrigo, who lost some of his lands in Bulacan 
under P.D. No. 27. 

MR. RODRIGO. All of my lands which were not 
too big. 

MR. OPLE. So this is one way of redressing that 
admittedly deplorable and cavalier treatment given to 
Land Bank bonds in the past. 

MR. RODRIGO. Under this provision, is it possible 
the implementing agency to repeat what 
the Marcos regime did, to pay the landowners from 
whom lands were taken ... 10 percent in cash and 90 
percent in bonds? 

\A is no such specific mandate, 

Madam President. 

MR. RODRIGO. But it would not be a violation of 
t IS section if the legislature or the implementing 
agency so prescribes? 

MR. OPLE. I think all the development planners 
know that given the magnitude of the agrarian reform 


that now has to be financed through Congress in tlie 
coming years under the land reform provision of the 
Article on Social Justice, the government cannot pay 
in cash except partially for lands that will be acquired 
by it for distribution. 

MR. RODRIGO. The question has not been answered 
categorically. My question is: Would it be a violation 
of this provision in the proposed Section 9 if Congress 
or the implementing agency again rules that lands taken 
from landowners will be paid 10 percent in cash and 
90 percent in bonds? 

MR. OPLE. It would not. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may the Commit- 
tee reply because we have accepted the amendment. 

MR. RODRIGO. Yes, please. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod may pro- 
ceed. 

MR. MONSOD. If the payments or payment terms to 
the landowners are similar to the previous program 
where the transfer value was 40-60 percent of the face 
value of the bonds, I think it has already been answered 
by this Committee, Madam President, that that would 
not constitute just compensation if that system were 
repeated by Congress. So it is the intent of the Com- 
mission to give this interpretation to the meanirig ot 
just compensation. And the problem that arose, if we 
will recall, was the question of the farmers’ affordability, 
and the answer was that that is where the State should 
probably step in to cover the difference between just 
compensation and what the farmers can afford. So the 
answer to the Commissioner’s question is that the terms, 
as he described, would not constitute just com- 
pensation. 

This Article, if the Commissioner would notice, starts 
with the words “SHALL PROVIDE INCENTIVES. 
So there is a mandate to the Congress that the value of 
the payments and the terms of conversion should be 
such that there would be an incentive for the land- 
owners to invest in these enterprises, and a conversion 
value of 50 percent of the face value would not be an 
incentive. 

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, I am sorry but my 
question has not been answered yet categorically- So 
let me give a specific case. Let us say that the land of a 
certain landowner is taken, under land reform. The 
government determines its value and arrives at the 
conclusion that the “just compensation” is PI 00 , 000 . 
Would it be a violation of this proposed section if the 
implementing agency tells the owner: “All right, I will 
pay you only PI 0,000 in cash and P90,000 in bonds”? 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, it would not be 
just compensation if the terms of the bonds are such 


FRIDAY, AUGUSTS, 1986 


85 


that the present value would not be equal to PI 00,000. 
If the interest, for example, on the bonds is way below 
the market rate of interest so that the present value of 
the stream of payments under the bond issue would be 
much lower than the balance of P90,000, it would not 
constitute just compensation. 

MR. RODRIGO. But it is possible to pay only 10 
percent in cash and 90 percent in bonds regardless of 
the interest on the bonds. 

MR. MONSOD. That would be possible here because 
I think when you pay full value, it can be in many 
forms and combinations. It can be all in cash, it can be 
payment terms over a period, but it must approximate 
the present value that is given to the market price of 
the land. 


MR. RODRIGO. The sentence further reads: 
“SHALL BE HONORED AS EQUITY IN SUCH EN- 
TERPRISES OF THEIR CHOICE.” Does the word 
“ENTERPRISES” mean public enterprises, or does it 
include private enterprises? 

MR. MONSOD. I think this would have to be read in 
connection with the first sentence where the phrase 
“PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SECTOR ENTER- 
PRISES” appears because that is witliin the power of 
the government to accept any exchange of the financial 
instruments for equity shares of these corporations. 

MR. RODRIGO. Public corporation. 


MR. MONSOD. “PUBLIC SECTOR ENTERPRISES.” 
In the case of private sector enterprises, I do not think 
that the government has the power to direct or com- 
mand private sector enterprises to accept the bonds as 
exchanged. However, if the value of the bonds is such 
that the present value reflects the real values, then it is 
possible because then there would be no loss for private 
enterprises to accept it in order to accelerate the broad 
participation of co-ownership of their companies. 


MR. RODRIGO, ta short, if the bonds are invested in 
government corporations, it can be compulsory for a 
government coiporation to accept these bonds if that 
corporation is the choice of the landowner. Is that 

right? If It IS a public corporation? 


MR. MONSOD. That is right. 

MR. RODRIGO. But, if it is a private corporation? 


MR. MONSOD. It cannot be compulsory. In that 
case, market forces will have to operate and that is 
where the value of the bonds will be a consideration. 

MR. RODRIGO. But, if the private enterprise opts to 
accept, can it accept? 


MR. MONSOD. That would be the operation of the 
market. 

MR. RODRIGO. In short, as regards to public cor- 
poration it is compulsory to accept the bonds as equity; 
but in regard to private corporation, it is optional. Is 
that correct? 

MR. MONSOD. Yes. 

MR. RODRIGO. But the problem is that I do not 
know of any public or government corporation in the 
Philippines which is making money, except perhaps the 
Land Bank. But can the Land Bank accommodate all 
the land bonds that will be issued for land reform? 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, it is not exactly 
correct to say that there are no public sector enter- 
prises other than the Land Bank. By the way, there are 
six banks and the other five, if I recall it correctly, are 
all making money. ComBank is making money; Union 
Bank is making money; then, of course. National Steel 
Corporation is making money — it is going to make, 
I think, over P500 million this year. There are several 
companies that are profitable, although we read only 
about the unprofitable ones. 

MR. RODRIGO. Yes, I am not an economist but 
I read about the billions upon billions of indebtedness 
of the PNB and the DBP. 

Thank you very much. 

MR. BENGZON. The Committee reiterates its accept- 
ance. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized. 


MR. RAMA. The issue has been amply debated, but 
Commissioners Colay co and Davide have some questions 
before we take a vote. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Colay co is recog- 
nized. 

MR. COLAYCO. Thank you. Madam President. 

My question is addressed either to Commissioner 
Ople or to the Committee. The proposal says “THE 
STATE SHALL PROVIDE INCENTIVES.” Will the 
payment be mainly in the form of financial instru- 
ments? 

MR. MONSOD. Yes. 

MR. COLAYCO. Can the Committee spell out its 
idea of what these incentives are going to be for the 
guidance of Congress? 


86 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


MR. MONSOD. Let me just give one example but 
which is not exhaustive. This would be in the pricing 
of the shares of the public sector enterprises, in the 
terms of payment of the shares of these private firms. 

MR. COLAYCO. I want figures. The bad experience 
of Commissioner Rodrigo and others has shown that the 
1 0-percent cash payment was just a drop in the bucket 
of the price paid. Does the Committee intend to follow 
the same percentage of cash payment? 

MR. MONSOD. When we answered Commissioner 
Rodrigo, we said that it is not really a question of 
whether it is paid in cash or not. Even if it is paid only 
10 percent in cash, the problem in the previous system 
was that the balance of 90 percent was payable over a 
long period of time at a very low interest rate, so that 
the present value of that bond was way below the real 
value of the property. Now, even if we have long-term 
payment and its balance is in bonds, if the interest rate 
on the bonds is such that the present market value of 
the bonds equals the price of the land, it is possible to 
exchange that in the free market, even in the private 
sector, because then there will be a market for such 
bonds. When the government unloads these public 
sector enterprises, then it is possible, in addition to 
gi^^g them the real value in terms of bonds, that the 
pncing of the shares is such that it gives an incentive for 
inem to buy those shares. 

MR. COLAYCO. Does the Gentleman think that his 
1 eas wm sufficiently guide the legislature to avoid past 
mistakes? 


owned or controlled corporations or banks, as the 
case may be, this will be among the incentives for the 
acceptance of these land bonds. 

MR. BENGZON. It is not only among the incentives, 
but it is the intent of the Committee in proposing this 
section here, that that be one of the consequences. 

MR. REGALADO. Thank you. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commis- 
sioner Davide be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you. Madam President. 

I seek enlightenment on some of the ramifications of 
this proposed section. Would we now allow the land- 
owner to negotiate the financial instruments, and for 
the person to whom it is negotiated to avail of the 
rights provided for under Section 9, or shall it be a 
personal right? 

MR. MONSOD. It is our understanding that bonds 
or financial instruments representing proceeds under the 
agrarian reform program would be negotiable instru- 
ments. 

MR. DAVIDE. And would the transferee or indorsee 
of that financial instrument be allowed to exercise the 
right under Section 9? 


MONSOD. There are, I think, enough records of 
Inis Commission which define just compensation. 

MR. COLAYCO. Thank you. 

MR. REGALADO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Regalado is recog- 
nized. 


REGALADO. I had previously discussed tl 
ma er with Commissioner Monsod, and I just want it 
e on the record. With respect to the incentives that w 

bonds, among oth 
ment^nf acceptable for the pa 

navmpnt lof* ° l^andowner concerned, and for t) 
pay ent, let us say , of loans from government banks? 

afflfi^ already articulated in tl 

affirmative by Comniissioner Ople this morning, and v 

reiterate that it is the intention of the Committee 
be such. 


A^R. REGALADO. In other words, whenever it is an 
obligation in favor of the government or of any of its 


MR. MONSOD. Yes, precisely because if we can 
create a market for those bonds and financial instru- 
ments, it would give incentives for more investments. 

MR. DAVIDE. The second question is on public 
sector enterprises: Will the reference of this be only 
government-owned and controlled corporations or their 
subsidiaries? 

MR. MONSOD. Yes. That is the meaning in this 
sentence, because the government would not have the 
power to oblige private sector enterprises to accept 
these bonds. 

MR. DAVIDE. Even corporations exercising quasi- 
public functions, like public utilities? 

MR. MONSOD. That would then be a matter of 
public policy on which enterprises would be privatized. 

MR. DAVIDE. In other words. Section 9 will be 
interpreted to mean that Congress will have the freedom 
or the liberty to include quasi-public utilities or cor- 
porations as one of the entities in which the landowner 
may use as equity the financial instruments issued to 
them in payment for the land. 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


87 


MR. MONSOD. If that k within the context of the 
privatization program of government, they would be 
included. 

MR. DA VIDE. With this particular section, we not 
only institutionalize the bonds which were used in pay- 
ment under the agrarian reform program, but also 
enshrine the right of Congress to require payments for 
lands taken under the agrarian reform program by way 
of bonds. Could it exclusively be bonds? 

MR. MONSOD. No. I think the reason why we used 
the word “financial instruments” is that we did not 
want to preempt the possible range of financial instru- 
ments that could be issued under the agrarian reform 
program. 

MR. DAVIDE. So, financial instruments may include 
any negotiable instrument for that matter — certificate 
of indebtedness, promissory notes, and other instru- 
ments. 

MR. MONSOD. Yes. 

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you. 


thing? This appears to be a long provision. I think by 
capturing the concept of coop.eration with private 
enterprise and the goal, as well as the purpose for the 
investment, could we rephrase it in some other way? 

MR. MONSOD. Does the Commissioner have any 
suggestions? 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. I do not know if this amend- 
ment captures the meaning I wish to convey: THE 
STATE IN COOPERATION WITH THE PRIVATE 
SECTOR SHALL PROMOTE INDUSTRIALIZATION 
BY EMPLOYMENT CREATION AND PRIVATIZA- 
TION OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES. TOWARDS THIS 
END, IT SHALL PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO LAND- 
OWNERS WHO INVEST PROCEEDS FROM AGRA- 
RIAN REFORM BOND ON VITAL ENTERPRISER. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the second 
sentence would convey the ideas we have here but the 
first sentence sounds hke a general statement that 
might belong in the Declaration of Principles and State 
Policies or in the Article on the National Economy 
and Patrimony. If we count the words, there are about 
the same as in the original. 


MR. RAMA. Madam President, Commissioner Ro- 
sario Braid seeks to be recognized. 


MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Madam President, I with- 
draw the amendment. 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid is 
recognized. 


MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Just a clarificatory question. 
Would “ENTERPRISES OF THEIR CHOICE” mean 
that we give the landowners the freedom to choose from 
all available enterprises or does the State suggest vital 
enterprises? 


MR. MONSOD. Madam President, what we mean is 
within the number or ^e range of enterprises which 
the government has decided would be privatized Then 
the landowners or the holders of these instruments 
make a choice from among those enterprises. It is not 
the landowners who direct which public sector enter- 
prises will be pnvatized. 


BISHOP BACANI. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog- 
nized. 

BISHOP BACANI. I would hke to ask a question of 
my fellow member of our Committee. 

This is meant to be an incentive. Now I would like to 
ask a similar question to the one that I asked yesterday 
regarding land reform. Supposing a landowner does not 
want to take advantage of this incentive and then he 
says, “I will not sell my land until you give me cash and 
that is the only one that I will accept.” Will the land- 
owners prevail or can they be forced to accept these 
financial instruments other than cash? 


tadustriauzation ia 
the goal, sho we not qualify it by saying a VITAL 

t^make free choices? 

MR. M^NSOD. That might be an unnecessary ad- 
jective ere ecause there are other sections in the 
Constitution that define more clearly and in more 
detail the areas or the manner by which the govern- 
ment can get involved in hidustrialization. This would 
not be the article for that definition. 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Lastly, in the spirit of 
brevity, could this not be shortened to mean the same 


MR. MONSOD. During yesterday’s discussions, we 
defined the agrarian reform program in terms of the 
exercise of police power, because in this case there is a 
higher level of objective and value than the landowner’s 
option to hold on to the private property. In that case, 
to refuse to participate or to allow the land to be part of 
the agrarian reform program merely on the basis of the 
fact that he wants all payments in cash probably would 
not be allowed. However, the owner is entitled to ask 
that the just compensation be really that. 

BISHOP BACANI. Thank you. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President. 


88 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMrA. Commissioner Lerum seeks to b^. recog- 
nized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Lerum is recog- 
nized. 

MR. LERUM. Madam President, I just want to ask a 
few questions. 

I agree with the purpose to the effect that it will 
liberate the tiller from the bondage of the soil. That is 
the first purpose. The second purpose is to release idle 
capital locked up in the antiquated land system and 
therefore accelerate industrialization and employment 
expansion. I am just curious — what is this capital that 
is locked up in this system? Will the sponsor kindly 
explain this? 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, there is a lot of poten- 
tial capital locked up in a land system which does not 
encourage productivity. For example, just to cull from 
some of the most recent examples under P.D. No. 27, 
there are many landed estates in rice and com that 
were broken up, and so I am speaking of absentee 
landowners. By the coverage of the land reform pro- 
largely idle capital of the absentee landowner 
which relies on the tenants’ efforts to generate pro- 
uction, IS released in terms of the compensation 
pven him. So that this gives him the opportunity to 
ranstorm his role from an absentee landowner not 
re y connected with the productive process, a virtual 
parasite of society, into an entrepreneur or perhaps 
even just as an investor. In the case of Taiwan, within 
live years from the inauguration of its land reform 
program, NT$2 billion was released to industry as a 
result of the agrarian reform program which otherwise 
would have been capital lying dormant in the land. 

MR. LERUM. The Gentleman is referring to Taiwan, 
but we are taking about the Philippines. Does this 
locked-up capital refer to the payment that should 
have been received by the landowner? 

MR. OPLE. Yes, the proceeds of agrarian reform. 

MR. LERUM. But according to the statement of the 
Gentleman, the 90 percent which should have been 

^^1,- ^ u in bonds is almost worthless, so where 
IS this locked-up capital that we are talking about? 

place, Commissioner Lerum 
would hke to outlaw any reference to the experience 
of a foreign country and I think that is less than 
courteous, especially when one sits in a committee I 
deplore that. 

MR. LERUM. I am sorry if that is the impression 
of the Gentleman, but I have to ask the question be- 


cause in the proponent’s own explanatory statement, 
the 90 percent that was paid in bonds is worthless. So, 
I want to find out where this locked-up capital is. 

MR. MONSOD. May the Committee answer. Madam 
President? 

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed. 

MR. MONSOD. There are many ways to look at this, 
but assets can either be in the form of land, bonds or 
cash. Cash is the easiest to use in terms of investments. 
When the agrarian reform program is implemented and 
the landowner exchanges bonds for his land, the bond is 
closer to liquidity than land. As we have stated before, 
if it is in the form of bonds and it really constitutes 
just compensation so that it bears the market rate of 
interest, that becomes a highly liquid asset that can be 
negotiated and, therefore, may be used as payment 
for equity, thereby increasing investment in the country 
in new or ongoing enterprises. I think that is the sense 
in which locked-up capital is referred to. It is really 
locked-up if it is not available for investments. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there has been suffi- 
cient debate and discussion on the matter. 

MR. LERUM. May I be allowed to reply? 

MR. RAMA. May I ask that we take a vote. 

THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Floor Leader, may we give a 
chance to Mr. Lerum to reply if he is satisfied \vith the 
response of Commissioner Monsod? Is Commissioner 
Lerum satisfied with the explanation? 

MR. LERUM. No; I have to make a reply, Madam 
President. 

Ordinarily that is so. But in the case of the bonds 
paid by the government to the landowner, these are not 
new capital but indebtedness to the landowner, so we 
did not create any capital. My contention is that there 
is no such Iqcked-up capital because the bond represents 
indebtedness of the government to the owners of the 
land which was given to the tillers of the soil. That is 
my point. 

MR. MONSOD. I am sorry, but I do not agree with 
the Gentleman. 

MR. LERUM. I am through. Madam President. 

MR. MONSOD. When we talk about capital, we have 
to distinguish between different types of assets. And 
usually in economics when we talk about investment, 
it is the creation of new productive enterprises or new 
productive assets. What we are saying here is, that is 
possible because then there would now be money avail- 
able to finance new productive assets. 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


89 


THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Maambong 
have anything to say? 

MR. MAAMBONG. Yes, Madam President. In fact, 
I am one of the proponents of Section 9, but I would 
like to present to the Committee a perfecting amend- 
ment to delete the words “SO AS” after the word “PRO- 
GRAM” in the third line so that it will read: “THE 
STATE SHALL PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO LAND- 
OWNERS TO INVEST THE PROCEEDS OF THE 
AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE 
INDUSTRIALIZATION.” 

Would that be acceptable? 

MR. MONSOD. We accept. Madam President. 

MR. MAAMBONG. Thank you. Madam President. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, may we now take a 
vote on Section 9? 

THE PRESIDENT. Does everybody have a copy of 
this proposed amendment of Commissioner Ople and 
several others? 

MR. BENGZON. Everybody has a copy. Madam 
President. 

VOTING 

THE PRESIDENT. Those who are in favor of the 
proposed Section 9 of the Article on Social Justice, 
please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their 
hand.) 

Those who are against, please raise their hand. (No 
Member raised his hand.) 

Those who are abstaining, please raise their hand. 
(One Member raised his hand. ) 

MR. RODRIGO. Please register my abstention. 

THE PRESIDENT. The results show 30 votes in favor, 
none against, and 1 abstention; the amendment is 
approved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, Section 3 of this 
Article has not yet been fully amended. May I ask that 
Commissioner Regalado be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Regalado is recog- 
nized. 

MR. REGALADO. Thank you. Madam President. 

My proposed amendment will be on Section 3, para- 
graphs (c) and (d). With respect to paragraph (c), it is 
more of a perfecting amendment on the last clause 
which says: “and enforce mutual compliance thereof’ 
- I propose to change “thereof’ to THEREWITH, 


because one complies with something and not of some- 
thing. 

THE PRESIDENT. May I have that again. Commis- 
sioner Regalado? What line please? 

MR. REGALADO. The fourth line of Section 3, 
paragraph (c), page 2, Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Commissioner proposes to 
change the word “thereof’ to “THEREWITH.” 

MR. REGALADO. Yes, Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is that accepted? 

MR. BENGZON. It is a matter of style, Madam 
President; we accept. 

THE PRESIDENT. Let us vote on the amendment 
first. Is there any objection to the proposed amend- 
ment of Commissioner Regalado to change the word 
“thereof’ to “THEREWITH.” (Silence) The Chair 
hears none; the amendment is approved. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog- 
nized. 

MR. MONSOD. May we rnake a request from the 
Floor Leader? 

The principal author of this section, Commissioner 
Aquino, had to be called outside on a long distance 
call and we would like to wait for her. Can we defer 
on the others and just proceed with Urban Land Reform 
and Housing? 

MR. REGALADO. This is Section 1 1? 

MR. MONSOD. Yes. 

MR. REGALADO. So, I will just defer my proposed 
amendment to paragraph (d) of Section 3. 

MR. MONSOD. Thank you. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commis- 
sioner Foz be recognized to amend Section 1 1 . 

MS. NIEVA. Madam President, before we go to the 
amendments from the others, I would like to explain 
some minor changes that we would like to propose on 
Section 1 1 . 

This is on the line that says: “a continuing urban 
land USE and Housing program. “First of all, “Housing” 
should be with a small h. And we would like to add the 
phrase IN COORDINATION WITH THE PRIVATE 
SECTOR, and then, “will MAKE decent housing.” 


90 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


MR. FOZ. Madam President, our amendment will 
also affect the same line. 

MS. NIEVA. As Qiairperson of the Committee, may 
I be allowed to continue? 

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed. 


MS. NIEVA. The rest of the sentence shall read: 
“continuing urban land USE and housing program that 
IN COORDINATION WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR 
will MAKE decent housing”; and then here we add: 
“AND SERVICES AVAILABLE at affordable cost to 
deserving low-income citizens in urban centers and 
resettlement areas." 

The reason for this is that we realize the magnitude 
of the housing problem in the country. We know that 
at this stage, there is a nationwide backlog representing 
just the households in slums and blighted areas esti- 
mated at 992,000 households and these blighted areas 
are 80 percent privately owned. Of these 992,000 
squatter households, some 282,000 are in Metro Manila. 
The studies have shown that these sites, in order to be 
upgraded, will cost approximately P543 biUion, while 
t e b^ance of the households will have to be resettled 
m various government resettlement sites and this again 
million. It is also estimated that every 
home lots have to be developed over the 

^ost approximately P460 
milhon. This is just for Metro Manila where one-third of 
the urban poor dwellers are located. 

A similar situation is evident in the 1 9 major regional 
urban centers outside Metro Manila for some 213,000 
squatter households living in slum areas. An estimate 
s owed that more than P3 billion will be needed to 
up^ade these areas in the provinces. So, in view of this, 
M we have supporting statistics here, we realize that 
making decent housing and services 
av able cannot be done by government solely. In fact, 
we eel that the government’s main job is to make the 
opportunities present and provide what they call new 
approaches of sites and services and development of 
improved infrastructure, leaving the matter of direct 
ousmg opportunities to the private sector, which in- 
cludes the people themselves, the different landowners, 
an developers, financing institutions, and for them to 
cooperate and work together to solve this problem that 

of all urh*^n AP problem, but is the problem 

of aU urban centers throughout the world. 

DIN^TION '■’e phrase IN COOR- 

maLT clrs ™E.'’R'''ATE SECTOR so as to 
make it clear that our mtention here is not for the 

government alone to be responsible fnr ^ a 

+UV ‘'=i>PonsiDie tor answermg and 

addressmg his very senous problem of our urban poor 

dwellers m the country. 


MR. RAMA. Commissioner Foz has the floor. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Foz is recognized. 

MR. FOZ. We would like to propose an amendment 
for the entire Section 1 1 in the form of an amendment 
by substitution. Let me read the proposed amendment. 
Madam President. It says: “The State shall ESTABLISH 
AND IMPLEMENT AN URBAN LAND REFORM 
PROGRAM TO PROMOTE THE RENEWAL, DEVEL- 
OPMENT AND MODERNIZATION OF HUMAN COM- 
MUNITIES FOR THE COMMON GOOD. IT SHALL 
PURSUE A SOCIAL HOUSING PROGRAM TO MAKE 
decent housing AND OTHER COMMUNITY SER- 
VICES AVAILABLE TO deserving low-income citizens.” 

First of all, the amendment seeks to reinstate the 
word “REFORM” as part of the term “urban land 
REFORM program.” The term “urban land use,’ 
Madam President, has a limited imphcation. Basically, it 
has to do only with zoning function, and does not cover 
the other components of an urban land reform program. 
The usual components of an urban land reform program 
are the following: First, to hberate human communities 
from blight, congestions and hazards and to promote 
their development and modernization; second, to bring 
about the optimum use of land as a national resource 
for public welfare rather than as a community of trade 
subject to price speculation and indiscriminate use; 
third, to provide equitable access to and opportunity 
for die use and enjoyment of the fruits of the land, 
fourth, to acquire such lands as are necessary to prevent 
speculative buying of land for public welfare; and, 
finally, to maintain and support a vigorous private 
enterprise system responsive to community require- 
ments in the use and development of urban lands. These 
are the reasons why we propose the reinstatement of 
the word “REFORM” to constitute urban land reform, 
and not only use. 

This amendment is being submitted not only by 
yours truly but also in collaboration with Commis- 
sioners Sarmiento, Trenas, Tan and Villegas. 

As to the statement of Commissioner Nieva that the 
provision of housing to low-income citizens should be in 
collaboration with the private sectors, there is actually 
no controversy about that. That is all very well under- 
stood in this provision. Madam President. We would like 
to hear the response of the Committee to the proposed 
amendment. 

MS. NIEVA. Madam President, there is some dis- 
cussion here and a recommendation that we first take 
the first proposal, the first amendment, changing the 
term “urban land USE” to “urban land REFORM.” 
We would like to throw this to the body because even 
the Committee is divided on the choice of words. 


THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Floor Leader, who is the first 
in the list? 


MR. FOZ. Madam President, I would like to make 
clear that “urban land USE” is a very limited concept. 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


91 


It consists mainly of zoning. It does not involve provT 
sion for housing and acquisition of land which may be 
necessary for the government to implement its housing 
program for the low-salaried citizens. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may we just have a 
short reply? 

If we look at the wording of the Committee, it is 
“urban land USE and housing program.” Nonetheless, 
we would hke to ask the judgment of tlie body on 
whether we should use the word “USE” or “REFORM.” 

MR. FOZ. May we add the information that the 
present Constitution already provides for an urban land 
reform program. So, if we use the word “USE,” we are 
now backtracking. This is withdrawing from the 
original concept now institutionalized in the present 
Constitution. 

MR. BENGZON. Madam President, may we hear 
from Commissioner Tan who is a member of the Com- 
mittee and who proposed this particular section. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tan is recognized. 

SR. TAN. I really did not propose this particular 
section. 1 was just in agreement with certain parts but 
I welcome this section. The first part is the change of 
the word “REFORM” from “USE” because land use 
could be applied to anybody. While if we say “RE- 
FORM,” it means to say that land has been used un- 
justly, so, we are trying to reform. So, I welcome 
“reform.” But as to the other two, I would suggest that 
instead of simply saying “TO MAKE decent housing and 
other community facilities available,” we say “TO make 
decent housing AND BASIC COMMUNITY FACILI- 
TIES OR SERVICES AVAILABLE.” One could have a 
swimming pool, like what is in the BLISS projects, but 
would not have the “basic”running water in the wash- 
room. I consider the use of the term “low income” not 
good, because “low income” is relative. An army soldier 
could be in the low-income group as a squatter could 
also be in that group. Perhaps a better word would be 
UNDERPRIVILEGED; but I welcome the way this has 
been revised. 

Thank you. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, Commissioner Ville- 
gas would like to comment on the same amendment. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villegas is recog- 
nized. 

MR. VILLEGAS. Could I just supplement the reason 
why I think the word “REFORM” in “urban land 
REFORM” should stay? I think it has to be clear that 
we are giving the State the authority to expropriate 
large urban tracts of land for redistribution to deserving 
citizens in the spirit of agrarian reform. So, 1 think the 


State cannot only expropriate large agricultural lands; it 
can also expropriate large urban lands for the common 
good. 

MR. MONSOD. Yes. 


SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended. 

It was 3:41 p.m. 

RESUMPTION OF SESSION 

At 3:57 p.m., the session was resumed. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, the proponents have 
reached a meeting of the minds. I ask that Commis- 
sioner Foz be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Foz is recognized. 

MR. FOZ. Madam’ President, after consultation with 
the Committee, as well as with other Commissioners, 
including Commissioners Trenas, Sarmiento, Tan, Rama, 
Villegas and de los Reyes, we have come up with a com- 
mon formulation on Section 1 1 , and which the Com- 
mittee is accepting. 

So, I would like to read for the benefit of the Com- 
mittee the entire provision, as reworded or reformulated. 

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed. 

MR. FOZ. “The State shall BY LAW and for the com- 
mon good undertake a continuing program OF urban 
land REFORM and housing IN COORDINATION WITH 
THE PRIVATE SECTOR that will MAKE decent 
housing AND BASIC SERVICES AVAILABLE at 
affordable cost to UNDERPRIVILEGED AND HOME- 
LESS CITIZENS in urban centers and resettlement 
areas.” 

That is the amendment to Section 1 1 , Madam Pres- 
ident. 

MR. BENGZON. Madam President, we are accept- 
ing the suggestion of Commissioner Nolledo that instead 
of “COORDINATION” we use the word COOPERA- 
TION which better reflects the idea of the Committee - 
“IN COOPERATION WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR.” 

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, I will explain. 

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed. 

V MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, I would like to be 
recognized. 


92 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner NoUedo is recog- 
nized. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I would like to explain why I 
suggested the word “COOPERATION” instead of 
“COORDINATION.” When we coordinate, we talk 
only of efforts. The word “COORDINATION” may 
preclude investments. So, I recommended to the Com- 
mittee that instead of “COORDINATION” we should 
use the word “COOPERATION.” I think Commissioner 
Foz will understand. 


MR. FOZ. So, the Gentleman would exchange 
“COORDINATION” for “COOPERATION”? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, because I feel that “CO- 
OPERATION” is a stronger term than “COORDINA- 
TION.” 


MR. FOZ. But is it not the other way around? 
MR. NOLLEDO. I do not think so. 


MR. FOZ. Coordination is a stronger term than 
cooperation, because with coordination there is in- 
vovement of efforts and also money — funds, while 
with cooperation, the private sector will just say, 

we agree, but there is no involvement, no commit- 
ment. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I do not think so, because when we • 
coor mate, we coordinate only efforts on the part of 
either side. But when we use “COOPERATION,” then 
cooperation may include investments, efforts and other 
tactors. I would even recommend COLLABORATION 
~ the original word that the Gentleman used. 

MR. FOZ. Actually, the word “COORDINATION” 
was suggested by the Committee. 

MR. NOLLEDO. That is why I explained to the 
Committee and the Committee accepted my suggestion. 

MR. FOZ. In that case, we also accept, Madam 
President. 


MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you, Madam President. 

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, I really feel I 
ave o react to this watering down of this particular 

°^8inal that the Committee pre- 
“BY th t regulate.” But when we say, 

fhA manHQtrt th legislation which removes 

the mandate that ^ along we have wanted the urban 
poor to enjoy as a form of social justice 


ship, use and disposition of property and its increment” 
is already stated in Section 1. Therefore, the general 
rule affects all the sections on Social Justice. So it does 
not dilute or diminish because the general rule is very 
strong and is in the first section. 

MR. FOZ. And in addition, the term “urban land 
REFORM” involves the idea of regulation. 

THE PRESIDENT. How does the section read now? 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, Commissioner Foz 
will read the complete text. 

MR. FOZ. The provision reads as follows: “The 
State shall BY LAW and for the common good under- 
take a continuing program of urban land REFORM 
and housing IN COOPERATION WITH THE PRIVATE 
SECTOR that will MAKE decent housing AND BASIC 
SERVICES AVAILABLE at affordable cost to UNDER- 
PRIVILEGED AND HOMELESS citizens in urban 
centers and resettlement areas.” 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, before we vote, I 
would like to explain briefly why I asked that the word 
“deserving” be deleted and that instead we add me 
words “HOMELESS citizens” after “UNDERPRI- 
VILEGED AND,” the reason being that there are under- 
privileged citizens that have homes by inheritance. 
Our main concern here are the homeless citizens w o 
live on the sidewalks, on top of garbage dumps an m 
shacks. So, that is the explanation why I ^ 

words “AND HOMELESS citizens.” May I ask tnar 
we now take a vote. Madam President? 

THE PRESIDENT. Just to clarify: we also have the 
proposed amendment of Commissioner Trenas. 

MR. TRENAS. Madam President, we have incor- 
porated all our ideas. 


VOTING 

THE PRESIDENT. Those in favor of this particular 
amendment on Section 11, please raise their hand. 
(Several Members raised their hand.) 

Those against, please raise their hand. (Few Members 
raised their hand.) 

The results show 35 votes in favor and 2 against; the 
amendment is approved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President. 


MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may we just THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized, 
answer our colleague because the reason we agreed to 

the removal of the words “regulate the ownership” MR. RAMA. May I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento 

that the general rule on “regulation, acquisition, owner- be recognized to amend Section 1 2 . 


FRIDAY, AUGUSTS, 1986 


93 


MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, my amend- 
ment is an amendment by deletion. May I propose 

* that we delete the words “with valid claims” after 
“dwellers”? 

MS. NIEVA. We have taken that out. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, that has been 
taken out. 

MR. BENGZON. We have taken that out. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Thank you. Madam President. 

MS. NIEVA. We also deleted the words “due pro- 
cess,” and instead we use “IN ACCORDANCE WITH 
law.” 

MR. SARMIENTO. Will Commissioner Nieva kindly 
repeat that. 

MS. NIEVA. Line 3 reads as follows: “Urban poor 
dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings 
demolished EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH law 
AND ALWAYS IN A JUST AND HUMANE MANNER.” 
But I think we have not yet finished it. 

MR. SARMIENTO. May I be clarified on why we 
removed the words “due process” and replaced these 
with the word “LAW” instead? 

MR. BENGZON. It is a redundancy. If it is in accord- 
ance with law, it means to say it is with due process. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Thank you. 

My other amendment on Section 1 2 is for the reten- 
tion of the lines originally deleted by the Committee, 
and these are the words “and their involvement in its 
planning and implementation.” 

Madam President, I conferred with a group of urban 
poor and they asked that these lines be retained because 
they wanted to participate not only in the planning but 
also in the implementation. These two lines, they said, 
are crucial lines which ought to be retained. 

THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say? 

MR. BENGZON. Will the Commissioner kindly repeat 
that? 

MR. SARMIENTO. My suggestion, Madam President, 
is for the retention of the lines “and their involvement 
in its planning and implementation” because this 
resettlement will definitely affect the urban poor 
numbering more than one million in Metro Manila. So 
they are suggesting — and I hope the Committee will 
accept this proposal — that we retain the words, “and 
their involvement in its planning and implementation.” 


MR. BENGZON. Madam President, the reason that 
was deleted is that there is already that understanding 
when we inserted the word “consultation.” 

MR. SARMIENTO. But for clarity — and what are 
two lines among friends — I propose that we retain 
these. After all, this was the original proposal of the 
Committee for the inclusion of these two lines. May 
I suggest, therefore, that we retain the same. 

MR. BENGZON. The situation we are really trying 
to avoid is that, if after all the planning which is done 
by the government in consultation with these people, 
they ultimately refuse to be resettled, then everything 
will have gone to waste. After all, this phrase is already 
covered in the word “consultation.” 

MR. SARMIENTO. Anyway, if the real intent of the 
Committee is for that consultation to cover their 
involvement in planning and implementation, then I 
withdraw my amendment. 

MR. BENGZON. Thank you very much. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de Castro is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Thank you. 

May I inquire from the Committee whether the 
words here, “urban poor dwellers shall not be evicted,” 
refer to the squatters? 

MS. NIEVA. Yes. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Under existing law, squatters are 
perse illegally occupying the land. 

MR. BENGZON. That is why we say, “IN ACCOR- 
DANCE WITH LAW,” because if he is a squatter, under 
the law, he is a nuisance per se. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Yes. 

MR. BENGZON. He can be evicted because of the 
very fact that he is a nuisance per se, which is in accord- 
ance with law. However, the eviction will have to be in 
a just and humane manner, not in the manner by which, 
for example, the squatters in the Tatalon Estate were 
evicted or were attempted to be evicted. 

MR. DE CASTRO. I will agree on the use of “JUST 
AND HUMANE MANNER.” But when we say that they 
cannot be evicted nor their dwellings demolished except 
in accordance with law would that force the poor owner 
of the land being squatted on to go to court to evict 
them? 


94 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


MR. BENGZON. That is why I say that if the illegal determine whether he is a professional squatter or 

squatters are a nuisance per se, an eviction, without just a mere squatter? We are constitutionalizing squat- 


going to court, would be in accordance with law. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Yes. So, the owner of the land on 
which they are squatting will have to go to court to 
evict them. Is that right under this provision? 

MS. NIEVA. Yes. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Suppose the poor owner does not 
have the means to go to court because litigation is costly, 
will he then have to hve with the situation that what he 
owns he does not have? With the statement “urban 
poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings 
demolished EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW 
AND ALWAYS IN A JUST AND HUMANE MAN- 
NER,” we are forcing the owner of the land to go to 
court, in accordance with law for the eviction. If the 
owner has no money because court litigation is quite 
expensive, then we are liable to have a small landowner 
ending up without any land at all. 

MR- BENGZON. Madam President, may we request 
Commissioner Regalado to explain this. 

MR. REGALADO. Thank you, Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Regalado is recog- 
nized. 

MR. REGALADO. As we were saying, a professional 
squatter with no valid claim whatsoever can be con- 
si ered a nuisance per se. And in the abatement of a 
nuisance per se as distinguished from a nuisance per 
uccidens, the owner does not have to go to court. He 
can report to the municipal authorities or to the health 
authorities or he can seek the aid of the police author- 
ities. If, on the other hand, it is a nuisance per accidens 
which requires a determination of facts, then that will 
be the time when judicial recourse will be necessary, 
^so, the owner himself, under the law on property, 
is entitled to use a reasonable cost in defense of his 
property, whenever there is a clear, patent infringement 
upon his property rights. Now, this does not compel 
the owner to go to court. If it is a nuisance per se, all 
he has to do is to seek the help of the local authorities. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President, may I make 
some remarks on Commissioner Regalado’s remarks. 

Commissioner Regalado speaks of professional 
squatters, who are to him a nuisance per se. When he 
^ds a squatter, that is a nuisance per accidens to him. 
Now, how can we determine whether or not he is a 
professional squatter? In the first place, when we see 
a man squatting on our property, it is illegal per se 
from the very beginning. What about in the city where 
somebody occupies your land which measures up to 
250, 300 or 350 square meters? How can the owner 


ting. I will really agree on a humane and Just manner 
of evicting them, but to require the owner of that land 
to go to court so that he can comply in accordance 
with law, will be too much punishment for the poor 
owner who is perhaps as poor as the squatter himself. 

MR. BENGZON. Madam President, to begin with, 
even at this moment or even without this particular 
paragraph, one cannot get a squatter out unless one 
sues him in court, unless, as we said, the squatter is a 
nuisance per se. And if he is a nuisance per se or a 
professional squatter, the landowner does not have to 
go to court, as explained by Commissioner Regalado. 

MR. DE CASTRO. That is my main difficulty. 

MR. BENGZON. That depends already upon the 
facts of the case. We cannot put all of those exceptions 
and explanations in here, except the ones that are m 
the Journal. 

MR. DE CASTRO. I would then make an amendment 
by deleting the first sentence of Section 1 2 because 
we are constitutionalizing squatting in this Constitu 
tion. 

MR. BENGZON. Would the Gentleman propose his 
amendment then so that we can act on it? 

MR. DE CASTRO. I suggest that the foUowing first 
sentence of Section 12 be deleted: “Urban 

dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings 
molished EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH law 
AND ALWAYS IN A JUST AND HUMANE MANN 
the reason being that we are constitutionalizing ® 
squatting whether it is professional squatters or J 
mere squatters. We have no reason to constitutioim ize 
what is nuisance per se or what is nuisance per acciaen 

MR. BROCKA. Madam President, may I recog 
nized? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Brocka is recog- 
nized. 

MR. BROCKA. I would like to make a comment 
on Commissioner de Castro’s comments on this. We 
are not out to find out, I think, in this particular section 
whether or not they are illegal or professional squatters. 
This particular section is premised on the fact that they 
are human beings and should be protected by law. They 
should not be driven away like animals, in the way the 
demolition of shanties was done in the past wherein a 
group of army or military or security guards would 
just come, without due process of law. In certain cases, 
some people have been killed . An example has already 
been cited in the case of the Tatalon Estate. 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


95 


The particular section is premised on the fact that 
squatters, whether they are there illegally or not, 
whether they are professionals or not, are human 
beings. It is not their fault that they are poor. Under 
the law, they should be protected. That particular 
protection is what we are asking under this section on 
social justice. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President, it has been 
accepted by the Committee that when we talk of urban 
poor dwellers, we refer to squatters. I do not say that 
they are animals; neither do I say that they should be 
driven like such. But what I am questioning. Madam 
President, is why we are constitutionaUzing squatting. 
So, I do recommend that the first sentence in Section 
12 be deleted. 

Thank you. 

THE PRESIDENT. Does the Committee accept the 
amendment by deletion? 

MS. NIEVA. No, the Committee does not accept. 
Madam President. 

VOTING 

MR. RAMA. May we take a vote on this? 

THE PRESIDENT. Those in favor of the proposed 
amendment of Commissioner de Castro to delete the 
first sentence of Section 12, please raise their hand. 
( One Member raised his hand.) 

Those against, please raise their hand. (Several Mem- 
bers raised their hand.) 

The results show 1 vote in favor and 30 against; the 
amendment is lost. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commis- 
sioner Davide be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President, before going to 
Section 11 or 12 in the draft, may I be allowed to go 
back to Section 1 1 after the Foz amendment. With 
the permission of the Commission, we failed to answer 
a basic demand and a basic right for the urban poor 
dwellers and resettlement dwellers. 

I seek to add, after the Foz amendment, the follow- 
ing sentence with the permission of the Commission; 
IT SHALL ALSO PROVIDE ADEQUATE EMPLOY- 
MENT OPPORTUNITIES TO SUCH CITIZENS. This 
is an amendment jointly proposed by Commissioners 
Nolledo, Sarmiento, Foz, Bennagen and Tan. Perhaps, 
in the euphoria of our desire to answer the needs of 
the urban poor dwellers, we forgot one very important 
and significant assistance which we should give to them. 


MS. NIEVA. Madam President, the original committee 
report carried the phrase “employment-generating 
economic activity.” Yes, that is very important. 

MR. DAVIDE. Would the Committee willingly 
accept this amendment? 

MS. NIEVA. We are accepting that amendment. 

THE PRESIDENT. Will the Commissioner please 
repeat the amendment. 

MR. DAVIDE. It is to place a new sentence after 
the Foz amendment: IT SHALL ALSO PROVIDE 
ADEQUATE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO 
SUCH CITIZENS. Commissioners Foz, Sarmiento, 
Nolledo, Tan and Bennagen are coauthors. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this 
proposed amendment which has been accepted by 
the Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the 
amendment is approved. 

MR. DAVIDE. On Section 1 2 of the proposed draft, 

I am constrained to present this amendment because my 
past is haunting me. I come from a very poor rural com- 
munity. But at the start of Section 1 2, we only speak of 
the urban poor dwellers. So, I seek to insert between 
“urban” and “poor” the words AND RURAL. 

MR. BENNAGEN. May we ask the proponent what 
to include under the category of “rural poor”? 

MR. DAVIDE. The same as the “rural poor” referred 
to in the phrase “No resettlement of URBAN OR 
RURAL DWELLERS” appearing in the second sentence. 
These are the rural poor. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Would these include also rural 
communities that are threatened by huge infrastructure 
projects? 

MR. DAVIDE. Certainly. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Thank you. Madam President. 

MS. NIEVA. The Committee gladly accepts the 

amendment. 

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the pro- 
posed amendment which has been accepted by the 
Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amend- 
ment is approved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commis- 
sioner Regalado be recognized. 


96 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Regalado is recog- 
nized. 

MR. REGALADO. Thank you, Madam President. 

Still on Section 12 of the draft proposal: we have a 
little difficulty in the conception of urban poor dwellers. 
I, therefore, propose an amendment to read UNDER- 
PRIVILEGED URBAN DWELLERS because when we 
speak of poor or poverty, it is generally conceived in 
terms of their financial capacity. But financial capacity 
alone is not the only consideration. There may be other 
factors to consider in classifying an underprivileged 
urban dweller. So, in heu of “urban poor dwellers” 
and to have a broader scope which will include the poor, 
I propose that we use the phrase UNDERPRIVILEGED 
URBAN DWELLERS to make it a little more encom- 
passing. 


MR. FOZ. The term “urban poor” is mentioned not 
only in the 1973 Constitution but in volumes and 
volumes of books on real estate development. It is an 
accepted term even among developers all over the world. 
So, I think we should stick to the term “urban poor.” 

MR. REGALADO. Provided, however, that it means 
not only the financial but also other aspects of life 
where they are underprivileged or at a disadvantage, 
and provided that the Committee will accept it. 

MS. NIEVA. Yes. 

MR. REGALADO. I will yield to the use of the words 
“urban poor.” 

MR. BENGZON. With that understanding. Madam 
President. 


MR. DAVIDE. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 


MR. DAVIDE. The Honorable Regalado did not read 
accepted amendment. It should read: 
URBAN AND RURAL POOR DWELLERS. 


^ after the change 
ot the word from “poor” to UNDERPRIVILEGED for 
e reasons I have given, and the word is more encom- 


MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Sarmiento is recog- 
nized. 


MR. SARMIENTO. May I just be allowed to make a 
comment on the proposed amendment? When we speak 
o urban poor dwellers, we speak of those who are 
inancially poor and deprived of basic necessities. So, 

pptvtt cover the word “UNDER- 

• T u ’ ^i^ce “urban poor” has achieved a 
meanmg. t has been used for years, for decades. So, if 

“UNDERPRIVILEGED URBAN 
Fvpn tv>o ’ 'vould be creating confusion. 

present Constitution speaks of “urban poor.” 

speafoflnd*iri“ged ° T 

includes the poor. Now ,h, '' 

poor” is used in the 1973 ConsuStirf^'n “tban 

In OQV that it u j 'constitution does not mean 
to say that it has had an inflexible and rigid juris- 
prudential meanmg. I want it ^ \u 

• 4 . 4 .U f -1 II expanded to more than 

just the financial capacity of a person. 

MR. FOZ. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Foz is recognized 


MR. REGALADO. With regard to the third line 

which says, “EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW 
AND ALWAYS,” I propose the deletion of the word 
“ALWAYS” because it is redundant. The Ime 

already says “EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW 
AND IN A JUST AND HUMANE MANNER.” 

MS. NIEVA. We accept. Madam President. 

MR. BENGZON. We accept. 

MR. REGALADO. On the fifth line, I Propof® ^ 

insert THEM AND between the words “with” and tne 
and after “communities,” add WHERE THEY A so 
that the amended portion will now read : or 

dwellers shall take place without consultation wi 
THEM AND the communities WHERE THEY ARE 
to be relocated.” We will give the communities where 
they are going to be transferred a say on whether or no 
they should be placed in that particular commuriity. n 
other words, we provide a dual consultation wit e 
community and with the urban poor in their own 
munity. Also, this will provide a chance for the o er 
community to which they are going to be relocate o 
explain whether their resources or their situation wou 
accommodate so many in the resettlement areas. 

MS. NIEVA. Madam President, does “THEM” refer 
to entire communities, because here we have in mind 
entire communities that have to be relocated and 
resettled because of infrastructure projects like dams? 


MR. REGALADO. "No. The use of the pronoun 
“them” has for its antecedent the urban or rural 
dwellers. There must be prior consultation, of course, 
with the urban and rural dwellers. So the word “them” 
has reference to the urban or rural dwellers who are 
going to be relocated. The second addition is also a 
consultation with the community to which they are 
going to be relocated. So, it is not just the government 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


97 


saying, “We will transfer you here,” without giving that 
other community where they are intended to be relo- 
cated the opportunity also to say, “Well, this is our 
present situation. We have these problems ourselves.” 

They may not have enough arrangements for giving 
employment as has already been adopted in the amend- 
ment of Commissioner Davide. So, at least there should 
be a consultation with the community where the 
settlers are going to be.^relocated, aside from the con- 
sultation with those who are going to be recolated. 

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DAVIDE. Would the proponent yield to one 
question? 

MR. REGALADO. Yes, gladly. 

MR. DAVIDE. What if the community to which they 
will be relocated rejects? Would it mean the failure of 
the resettlement plan or program? 

MR. REGALADO. No. The word we used here is 
only “consultation.” They cannot reject or override a 
governmental policy, but at least that community can 
prepare to accept these people or to ventilate also the 
possible problems, because being members and resi- 
dents of that community, they are also in a position 
to inform the authorities why it would not be advisable. 
If, however, the authorities insist, then it is only a 
question of consultation. 

MR. DAVIDE. So just for the record, it is not really 
a right granted to the communities to where they will 
be relocated. 

MR. REGALADO. No. 

MR. DAVIDE. If the other community will reject, 
the government can still insist. 

MR. REGALADO. Yes, because the word used here 
is “consultation” only. The government can also learn 
from those who have been living in those areas for years 
and who know what the possible situation would be, if 
these urban poor are transferred to those communities. 

THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say? 

MR. BENGZON. Will the Commissioner read the 
proposal again? 

MR. REGALADO. In other words, this last sentence 
would be: “No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers 
shall take place without consultation with THEM AND 
the communities WHERE THEY ARE to be relocated.” 


MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President, just one more 
point. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Maambong is 
recognized. 

MR. MAAMBONG. In tlie original formulation, it is 
my understanding that the one to be consulted is the 
communities where the urban or rural dwellers are. With 
this amendment, tlie communities to be consulted are 
the communities where they are to be relocated. Is that 
correct? 

MR. REGALADO. No, there will be dual con- 
sultation. 

MR. MAAMBONG. Both? 

MR. REGALADO. Both. 

MR. MAAMBONG. Thank you. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog- 
nized. 

MR. BENNAGEN. May I ask the proponent one 
clarificatory question as to the meaning of “con- 
sultation”? I ask this because in our experience, the 
government makes claims to consultation but it merely 
goes through the motion of consultation. We would 
like to envision here a consultation that would provide 
tlie communities adequate information on who are the 
relocatees and where they will be going. 

MR REGALADO. The word “consultation” was 

oposed by the Committee, so it is for the Committee 
to ^ve its own interpretation as to the extent, the 
scope, the effect, the means and the modes of con- 
sultation. 

MR BENNAGEN. I mentioned that because we feel 
that consultation should be qualified in terms of making 
adequate information available to those who are con- 
cerned so that decisions are made on the basis of the 
best available information. 

MR. REGALADO. Yes. 

MR BENNAGEN. That is the meaning we have here, 

MR. REGALADO. Yes, as the Committee originally 
intended the word “consultation” to mean. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Thank you. Madam President. 

MR. BENGZON. Will the Gentleman read the amend- 
ment again, please? 


98 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


MR. REGALADO. The last sentence of Section 12 
will read; “No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers 
shall take place without consultation with THEM 
AND /the communities WHERE THEY ARE to be 
relocated.” 

MS. NIEVA. We accept the amendment, Madam 
President. 

THE PRESIDENT. What happens to the last phrase? 

MS. NIEVA. The last phrase — “and their involve- 
ment in its planning and implementation” — was already 
eliminated. 

THE PRESIDENT. That was eliminated already. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Sarmiento is recog- 
nized. 


MR. SARMIENTO. Before we put the matter to a 
vote, will the proponent yield to an amendment as a 
consequence of the Davide amendment? So, the 
senteiKe will read: “No resettlement of urban AND 
mra R dwellers. . .” This is in consonance with line 

MR. REGALADO. The amendment is accepted. 

MR. BENNAGEN. May I just say something? 
nize^^ president. Commissioner Bennagen is recog- 


MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, we go back to 
the same problem because if we say SUCH, we are 
referring to “urban and rural poor dwellers.” So, I think 
we should retain “urban and rural dwellers.” 

MR. MAAMBONG. I agree. 

MS. NIEVA. Madam President, we retain the original 
phraseology. 

THE PRESIDENT. So, what we have now is the 
Regalado amendment. 

Is there any objection to the amendment of Com- 
missioner Regalado? (Silence) The Chair hears none; 
the amendment is approved. 


MR. RAMA. Madam President, there are no rnore 
registered proponents of amendments to this provision, 
so may I ask that we take a vote on the whole provision. 

THE PRESIDENT. Will the Chairman now read 
Section 12. 


MS. NIEVA. Section 12 now reads as follows: ‘Ur- 
ban and rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor 
their dwellings demolished except in accordance with 
law and in a just and humane manner. No resettlement 
of urban and rural dwellers shall take place without 
adequate consultation with them and with the com- 
munities where they are to be relocated.” 


THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to tWs 
Section 1 2 as read by the honorable Chairman of the 
Committee on Social Justice? 


EENNAGEN. We may not have to qualify rural 
dwellers with the adjective “POOR” because in cases 

^ ^ massive relocation, like relocations 

ugh about by construction of dams, even those 
who are not really rural poor are included. 


MR. SARMIENTO. With that explanation, I with- 
draw my amendment. 

MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President. 


MR. DAVIDE. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DAVIDE. I heard the Committee Chairman 
reading “urban and rural dwellers.” It should be or- 

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, just for ven- 
fication. Do the records show the words ‘‘without 
consultation” or “without adequate consultation”? 


reco^ized*^^^*^^^^' ^°"^"^issioner Maambong is THE PRESIDENT. “Without adequate consultation. 


MR. MAAMBONG. To avr.m 
word “urban” or “rural ” will r 5®Pehtion of tl 
accept an amendment to hi<! Regalai 

read; “No resettlement OF SUol^J 
eliminate the words “urban or rural” and' tasert SUC 

MR. REGALADO. That amendment is accepted i 
sofar as I am concerned but that is the wording of t 
Committee so I think they should be consulted. 


BISHOP BACANI. Thank you. 

VOTING 

THE PRESIDENT. As many as are in favor, please 
raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.) 

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (One 
Member raised his hand.) 

The results show 34 votes in favor, 1 against and 
no abstention; Section 12 is approved. 


FRIDAY, AUGUSTS, 1986 


99 


MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Com- 
missioner Nolledo be recognized to amend Section 13 
which is now Section 1 2 under the subtitle “health.” 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Nolledo is recog- 
nized. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. What is the pleasure of Commis- 
sioner Monsod? 

SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

MR. MONSOD. We had deferred considering the last 
two paragraphs of the section on labor. Since Commis- 
sioner Aquino is back, may we go back there, with the 
indulgence of Commissioner Nolledo? 

Madam President, may we have a suspension of the 
session to organize ourselves? 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended. 

It was 4:37 p.m. 

RESUMPTION OF SESSION 

At 5:14 p.m., the session was resumed with the 
Honorable Regalado Maambong presiding. 


It shall guarantee the rights of ALL workers to self- 
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, 
peaceful and concerted activities including the right to 
strike in ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THEY SHALL 
BE ENTITLED TO SECURITY OF TENURE, just and 
humane conditions of work, A LIVING WAGE, and TO 
PARTICIPATE IN the pohcy and decision-making 
PROCESSES affectmg their rights and benefits AS 
MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW. 

The State shall promote THE PRINCIPLE OF 
SHARED RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN WORKERS 
AND EMPLOYERS IN settUng THEIR disputes 
THROUGH THE USE OF VOLUNTARY MODES, 
INCLUDING CONCILIATION, AND THE ENFORCE- 
MENT OF THEIR MUTUAL COMPLIANCE THERE- 
WITH. 

THE STATE shall regulate THE RELATIONS BE- 
TWEEN WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS, RECOG- 
NIZING, FOREMOST, the right of labor to its just 
share and the right of BUSINESS ENTERPRISES to 
reasonable returns on investments, EXPANSION AND 
GROWTH.” 

This reformulation took off basically from what we 
had voted upon in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Section 
3, and we have incorporated the proposed amendments 
of Commissioners Azcuna, Foz, Colayco, Regalado and 
the Committee. 

MR. REGALADO. Mr. Presiding Officer. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
session is resumed. 

Mr. Floor Leader, will you kindly indicate where we 
are now. 

MR. RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer, there is a request 
from the Committee that Commissioner Aquino be 
recognized. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). 
Commissioner Aquino is recognized. 

MS. AQUINO. Mr. Presiding Officer, by now the 
body should have been furnished with copies of the re- 
formulated section on labor, pertaining to Section 
3. May I be aUowed to read it while we are waiting for 
the xerox copies? 

the presiding officer (Mr. Maambong). The 

Commissioner may proceed. 


MS. AQUINO^ The reformulation would account fc 
a reformatting by way of completing the paragrapi 
instead of mere enumerations, and some transposition 
which would best define the concepts. 


Section 3 reads: “The State shall afford EVERY 
protection to labor and promote full employment and 
equality of employment opportunities FOR ALL. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Regalado is recognized. 

MR. REGALADO. Before the suspension of the ses- 
sion, I was on this last paragraph where I was supposed 
to introduce an amendment, but we had to wait for the 
reformulation. With respect to this last paragraph, on 
the third sentence thereof, I am proposing an amend- 
ment by insertion of the word EQUIVALENT between 
the words “the” and “right” to read; “share and the 
equivalent right of business enterprises to reasonable 
returns.” 

The reason for this is that the original draft stated 
the corresponding rights, which are very vague and 
ambiguous. Then I noticed that the word “correspond- 
ing” was eliminated and that the words “the right” 
were simply put. In the case of labor, it is stated that it 
must be “RECOGNIZING, FOREMOST, the right of 
labor to its just share. To put this on an equipoise, 
since all persons should be equal before the law, I pro- 
pose this amendment: “and the EQUIVALENT right 
of business enterprises to reasonable returns on invest- 
ments . . .” 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). 
Before the Committee responds, we would like to know 
from Commissioner Aquino if there is a reformulation 
of paragraphs (c) and (d) because I think Commissioner 
Regalado is now proposing to amend paragraph (d). 


100 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


MS. AQUINO. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. There is a 
reformulation of the two paragraphs. 

MR. REGALADO. I am using the reformulated draft 
as furnished me. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Is it 
the reformulated draft he is using now? 


REV. RIGOS. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Rigos is recognized. 

REV. RIGOS. Do I understand that the word 
“FOREMOST” here refers to the right of labor to its 
just share or also to the right of business enterprises? 


MS. AQUINO. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. But there 
are some minor corrections. The omission of the word 
“corresponding” was not intended; it must have been a 
typographical error. 


MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officer, may we 
be furnished a copy? We are just guessing here. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Even 
the Chair is waiting for its copy. In the meantime, may 
we just proceed. Commissioner Regalado? 


MR. REGALADO. Yes. Since Commissioner Aquino 
said that the word ‘corresponding” should have been 
there,^ I am proposing the change to “EQUIVALENT 
right because corresponding right” is very vague; 
there can be no corresponding right of capital, shaU we 
^nim/A^T labor. So, I am proposing “the 

Si capital Lo to 

equal ^ growth potential. Equivalent does not mean 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Will 
the Committee respond? 

MS. AQUINO. If the Gentleman would read the para- 
graph, when we say that the State shall regulate, the 
reference to the “FOREMOST” right means that the 
guiding or the polar star in the regulation of the State 
regarding the relationship between workers and em- 
ployers is the primacy of labor. 

REV. RIGOS. Probably a comma (, ) should be 
inserted after “share” to make it clear that “FORE- 
MOST” is intended to refer to the right of labor to its 
just share. 

MS. AQUINO. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, we accept 
the amendment. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
Floor Leader is recognized. 


presiding officer (Mr. Maambong). What 
does the Committee say? 

Commissioner Bacani is recognized. 

BISHOP BACANI. The understanding then is that the 
meaning is not equal. We prefer the word “correspon- 
mg, I believe, because we do not wish to speak 
equality here nor we do not deny equality, 
it • ^ compare an orange to an apple, and say 

IS equal to an apple. As you can see, the terms are 
rioht^^^f etely parallel. We are vindicating almost the 
thp share and what is said regarding 

nn inx ^'^siness enterprises is to reasonable returns 
snpatin^ ments, expansion and growth. So we are not 

whv completely equivalent things. That is 

why we used the word “corresponding.” 

doM^of ^ “equivalent’' 

pertaining to diSenT^l^t equalize rights 

spending’^ is'amfieTol"^^^^^^^^^ 

“corresponding lights”? ^ 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER iMr lu u ^ i 

the Committee accepting th^Umen 


MR. RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer, there is anot er 
amendment to the same subsection. May I usk tha 
Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized? 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Just 
a moment, Mr. Floor Leader. There is a pending ^O" 
posed amendment of Commissioner Regalado. i 
Commissioner Regalado rephrase the amendment so 
that the body will know? 

MR. REGALADO. The entire paragraph will read: 

“THE STATE shall regulate the RELAT^NS 
BETWEEN WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS, RECOG- 
NIZING, FOREMOST, the right of labor to its just 
share, and the EQUIVALENT right of BUSINESS 
ENTERPRISES to reasonable returns on investments, 
EXPANSION AND GROWTH.” 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
proposed amendment is to change the word “corre- 
sponding” to “EQUIVALENT”? 

MR. REGALADO. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

MR. DA VIDE. Mr. Presiding Officer. 


MS AQUINO^ Mr. Presiding Officer, we would rather 
submit it to the body for a decision. ' 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Davide is recognized. 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


101 


MR. DAVIDE. I would like to propose an amend- 
ment to the proposed amendment. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
Gentleman may proceed. 

MR. DAVIDE. On the second line, instead of “labor” 
it should be WORKERS; that is, “the right of WORK- 
ERS,” then change “its” to THEIR. On the third line, 
change “business enterprises” to EMPLOYERS. So, the 
provision will now read: “THE STATE shall regulate 
THE RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS AND EM- 
PLOYERS, RECOGNIZING, FOREMOST, the right 
of WORKERS to 'THEIR just share and the right of 
EMPLOYERS to reasonable returns . . .” 

» 

MR. REGALADO. I accept the amendment, Mr. 
Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). What 
does the Committee say? 

MS. AQUINO. Mr. Presiding Officer, the Committee 
prefers the retention of the word “labor” because of its 
positive connotation of a capability for force. Besides, 
it is a generally accepted and settled usage in labor and 
management relations that you would refer to workers 
as “labor.” 

MR. DAVIDE. This is just to harmonize it with the 
first line. We speak of the relations between workers 
and employers. It did not speak of the relations between 
labor and capital. 

MR. REGALADO. Mr.* Presiding Officer, likewise in 
the preceding paragraph, it also speaks of workers and 
employers. 

MR. DAVIDE. Yes. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). What 
does the Committee say? 

MS. AQUINO. There might be a problem of con- 
ceptual symmetry here. When we say “reasonable 
returns on investments, EXPANSION AND GROWTH,” 
we usually refer to business enterprises, not to em- 
ployers. 

MR. DAVIDE. What about, say, a single proprietor- 
ship? We do not consider it as a business enterprise; so, 
it is an individual employer. 

^ could be included, Mr. Presiding 
Officer. It may be a generic reference to all kinds of 
businesses. 

MR. DAVIDE. If the idea is to harmonize the con- 
cept, it should be relations between labor and capital. 
The first sentence should read: “THE STATE shall 


regulate THE RELATIONS BETWEEN LABOR AND 
CAPITAL, RECOGNIZING, FOREMOST, the right of 
labor to its just share and the right of BUSINESS 
ENTERPRISES to reasonable returns.” 

MS. AQUINO. Mr. Presiding Officer, the Committee 
insists on the retention of the phrase “BUSINESS 
ENTERPRISES” because “employers” or “capital” has 
its connotation with reference to money and . . . 

MR. REGALADO. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Regalado is recognized. 

MR. REGALADO. On the matter of using the term 
“business enterprises,” I am envisioning, for instance, 
the situation of a sectarian school like the school I 
am connected with. It is not considered a business 
enterprise because it is a corporation solely run by the 
Benedictine community. Yet, they are employers and, 
in determining the right of labor, do we not also have 
to take into account the reasonable returns on invest- 
ments, expansion and growth of that academic com- 
munity? Otherwise, they will be out of the concept 
of “business enterprises,” because they are not primarily 
designed for business. So, I think the generic terms of 
“employers” and “employees, as used in the opening 
line of that last paragraph and in the next preceding 
paragraph, do not make only for a symmetrical 
formulation; they are broad enough to cover the rela- 
tions between the so-called labor and the so-called 
capital. So, we use the word “employers” because they 
are not necessarily capital-or revenue-or profit-oriented. 

MR. AZCUNA. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Azcuna is recognized. 

MR. AZCUNA. Would Commissioner Regalado 
accept PRIVATE ENTERPRISE instead of “employers” 
so that the provision will read; “AND THE CORRE- 
SPONDING OR EQUIVALENT RIGHT OF PRIVATE 
enterprise to reasonable returns on investments 
EXPANSION AND GROWTH.” 

MR. REGALADO. Firstly, that was a proposed 
amendment to my amendment by Commissioner 
Rodrigo. I think the question should be addressed to 
him. I just followed it up for purposes of symmetry. 

MR. AZCUNA. I see. What does Commissioner 
Davide say? 

MR. DAVIDE. The amendment is accepted. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Will 
the Committee react now to this present formulation 
because there seems to be an acceptance of Commis- 


102 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


sioner Davide to the word suggested by Commissioner 
Azcuna? 

BISHOP BACANI. Mr. Presiding Officer, if we use 
“PRIVATE ENTERPRISE,” how about government 
enterprises? Are they employers? 

MR. AZCUNA. The government has no right to a 
return on its investment for public service. So, it has 
no right. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). 
Could we perhaps resolve this issue if both Commis- 
sioner Davide and Commissioner Regalado will approach 
the Committee and formulate whatever suggestions they 
have? They have been saying so many words and I think 
the body is now confused. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). For 
the benefit of the other Members of the Commission, 
let us take it up one by one. We are now on the fourth 
paragraph. The first line states: “THE STATE shall 
regulate THE RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS 
AND ...” Does the Gentleman have any amendment 
there? 


MR. REGALADO. None, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

The next line, “labor to its just share,” is all right. 

It is on the third line that I suggested the amendment 
to eliminate “BUSINESS” such that it will read: “and 
the EQUIVALENT right of ENTERPRISES to reason- 
able returns.” The reason I put “EQUIVALENT right of 
ENTERPRISES” is to put it as an equipoise with the 
word “FOREMOST” on the second line as insisted * 
upon by the Committee. 


MR. OPLE. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Ople is recognized. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Will 
the Committee now indicate what amendatory word has 
been accepted by the Committee and what amendatory 
word has not been accepted? 


MR. OPLE. I wanted to convey the concern that 
Commissioner Bacani had already stated that the use 
of the term “private enterprise” might prejudice the 
nght to the same protection under this section of 
vanous classes of workers and employees in govern- 
ment enterprises and in the public service itself. 


SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Th. 
C an declares a suspension of the session. 

It was 5:30 p.nt. 


resumption of session 

At 5:35 p.m., the session was resumed. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
session is resumed. 

The Floor Leader is recognized. 




mi™nefR?gSs?rcS 


oodtL'^rf the*r°' Officer, I think 

phrase “the nghf^hS iVto “d 

right of ENTERPRISES to reasoSe tSmT” 

the word enterpnses,” taking away the word “I 
ness,” will cover all possible enterprises not necess 
for business. 


MS. AQUINO. The Committee has accepted the 
substitution of the word “LABOR” in place of the wor 
“WORKERS” and ENTERPRISES in place of the terrn 
“BUSINESS ENTERPRISES. However, the proposed 
amendment to substitute the word “EQUIVALENT 
for “corresponding” is not acceptable to the Commi - 
tee. We would submit it to the body for a vote. 

May the Committee be allowed to explain? It is the 
shared sentiment that the substitution of the word 
“corresponding” with “EQUIVALENT” would efftc; 
tively reduce the potency of the word “FOREMOSl- 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Is 
Commissioner Regalado insisting on his amendment o 
adding the word “EQUIVALENT”? 

MR. REGALADO. Yes, to be voted upon by the 
body, because of their insistence on putting the word 
“FOREMOST” insofar as labor is concerned. 

MR. RODRIGO. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Rodrigo is recognized. 

MR. RODRIGO. Is “EQUIVALENT” or “CORRE- 
SPONDING” the word to be inserted? 

MR. REGALADO. The amendment of the Commit- 
tee omitted the word “appropriate ”in the drafting. 

MS. AQUINO.“Corresponding.” 

MR. RODRIGO. “Corresponding.” 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


103 


MR. REGALADO. Lack of “corresponding.” 

MR. RODRIGO. I am asking whether the amendment 
of Commissioner Regalado is to insert the word 
“EQUIVALENT.” 

MR. REGALADO. “EQUIVALENT right” instead 
of “corresponding right.” 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). We 
will take this up one by one. Will the Committee now 
indicate again the amendatory word of Commissioner 
Regalado which has been accepted so that we do not 
have to put that to a vote? 

MS. AQUINO. The last paragraph, as amended, 
reads: “THE STATE shall regulate THE RELATIONS 
BETWEEN WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS, RECOG- 
NIZING, FOREMOST, the right of labor to its just 
share, and the corresponding right of ENTERPRISES 
to reasonable returns on investments, EXPANSION 
AND GROWTH.” 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). That 
is acceptable now to the Committee. 

MS. AQUINO. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Is 
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; 
the amendment is approved. 

We will go now to the word “EQUIVALENT.” Will 
the Committee indicate again where that word is 
supposed to be inserted? 

MS. AQUINO. On the penultimate line of the fourth 
paragraph, between the words “the” and “right,” there 
is supposed to be the word “corresponding.” The 
omission is a typographical error and now Commis- 
sioner Regalado seeks to delete this word and substitute 
the word “EQUIVALENT. 


VOTING 


the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
Chair will now put it to a vote. 


As many as are in favor of the insertion of the word 
“EQUIVALENT between the words “the” and “right” 
on the third line of the last paragraph of this draft, 
please rarse then hand. (Few Members raised their 
hand.) 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Aquino is recognized. 

MS. AQUINO. There is another typographical error 
on the second line of paragraph 3. There was an omis- 
sion of the word PREFERENTIAL before the word 
“use.” 

MR. DAVIDE. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Davide is recognized. 

MR. DAVIDE. If that is a committee amendment, 
I would like to propose an amendment. Between the 
words “employers” and “and” on the third paragraph, 
insert the following: AND THE PREFERENTIAL USE 
OF VOLUNTARY MODES; then on the second line, 
add s to “dispute” and delete the words “through 
the.” On the third line, delete the words “use of volun- 
tary modes,” so that the entire paragraph will read: 
“The state shall promote the principle of shared res- 
ponsibility between workers and employers AND THE 
PREFERENTIAL USE OF VOLUNTARY MODES in 
settling their disputes, including conciliation, and 
enforcement of their mutual compliance therewith.” 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). What 
does the Committee say? 

MS. AQUINO. The Committee accepts the amend- 
ment. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
amendment as proposed by Commissioner Davide has 
been accepted by the Committee. 

Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears 
none; the amendment is approved. 

Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Mr. Presiding Officer, my amend- 
ment is an amendment by addition. This is coauthored 
by Commissioner Foz. 

After the word “share,” add the words: IN THE 
FRUITS OF PRODUCTION. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Will 
the Gentleman kindly indicate the paragraph. 


MR. SARMIENTO. On the fourth paragraph, add the 
words IN THE FRUITS OF PRODUCTION. May I 
briefly explain? 


As 3re against, please raise their hand. 

(Several Members raised their hand.) 


The results show 13 votes in favor and 20 against; 
the proposed amendment is lost. 


MS. AQUINO. Mr. Presiding Officer. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
Gentleman may proceed. 

MR. SARMIENTO. The words “just share” seem 
incomplete; they could mean just share in the owner- 
ship, management and profit of enterprise. 


/ 


104 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


MR. BENGZON. We accept the amendment. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
proposed amendment of Commissioner Sarmiento has 
been accepted by the Committee. 

Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears 
none; the amendment is approved. 

Commissioner Padilla is recognized. 

MR. PADILLA. On lines 2 and 3 of paragraph 4, 

I suggest that we eliminate “foremost” and “corre- 
sponding.” There are some adjectives that are meaning- 
ful like “preferential.” The words “foremost” and 
“corresponding” do not seem to add any substance. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
Chair does not understand the proposed amendment 
of Commissioner Padilla. What specifically is the Gentle- 
man’s proposed amendment? 

MR. PADILLA. On Unes 2 and 3, eliminate “fore- 
most” and “corresponding.” 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). What 
does the Committee say? 

MS. AQUINO. The Committee regrets that it cannot 
accept the amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
Committee does not accept the proposed amendment. 
Does the Gentleman insist on a vote? 

MR. PADILLA. May I explain briefly my amend- 
ment and then I ask for a vote. The sharing of res- 
ponsibility and likewise the sharing of the benefits of 
industrial peace are rights not only of labor but also 
of the enterprise. Actually, if the enterprise does not 
earn or realize profits as reasonable returns on invest- 
ments, if there are no profits or net income, then there 
can hardly be any basis for the share of labor m the 
fruits of production. They are joint rights, concomitant, 
mutually dependent on each other. So, I feel that the 
adjectives or the words “foremost” and “correspond- 
ing” do not add to the real intent of more productivity, 
which we fervently expect from industrial peace. Both 
factors should derive enough earnings or profits for 
reasonable returns to capital and a just share to labor. 
When the word “just” justifies “share,” that is mean- 
ingful; but the adjectives “foremost” and “correspond- 
ing” do not add any substantial significance. 

BISHOP BACANI. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Bacani is recognized. 


BISHOP BACANI. This has a psychological impact, 
I believe. In actual situations when, for example, the 
price of raw materials is raised, the enterprises easily 
accept that, but they would not so easily raise the price 
of labor or the salaries of workers. This is the last thing 
they will accept to raise. In other words, the primacy 
of the human component is in practice not actually 
recognized; that is why it is important to indicate that 
it is foremost. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Is the 
Committee now prepared to submit the matter to a 
vote? 

MR. PADILLA Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Padilla is recognized. 

MR. PADILLA. I cannot fuUy agree that this is only 
for psychological effect because we must be realistic. 

BISHOP BACANI. That is part of reality — the 
psychology of people: the way they react, the way they 
look at things. 

VOTING 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Shall 
we now put the amendment to a vote? 

As many as are in favor of the amendment, please 
raise their hand. ( Several Members raised their hand.) 

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few 
Members raised their hand.) 

The results show 1 8 votes in favor and 17 against; the 
proposed amendment is approved. 

MR. RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. I ask that Commissioner David e be 
recognized to present an amendment. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Davide is recognized. 

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

This is a very simple amendment. On Section 13, 
instead of “EVERY” before “protection,” use the word 
FULL. 

MS. AQUINO. We accept the amendment. 

the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Is 
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; 
the amendment is approved. 


t 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


105 


MS. QUESADA. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Quesada is recognized. 

MS. QUESADA. I would like to propose an amend- 
ment to this. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officer, we did not 
understand the amendment of the Gentleman. We were 
looking at Section 13 but the proceedings were so fast. 
It does not matter to me anyway. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). For 
the information of Commissioner de Castro, on Section 
13, line 1, what was sought to be amended and what 
was accepted by the committee is the change of the 
word “every” to FULL. It was already approved. 

MR. REGALADO. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Regalado is recognized. 

MR. REGALADO. I think a little confusion arises 
here because of the fact that there is a typographical 
error — instead of Section 13, it should be Section 3. 
So, the other Commissioners are looking at the end 
of the Article while we are referring to Section 3. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
Chair corrects itself; it should be Section 3. 

The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. For the last amendment to Section 3, 
I ask that Commissioner Foz be recognized. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Foz is recognized. 

MR. FOZ. Mr. Presiding Officer, this is an amend- 
ment that seeks to add a phrase after the word “there- 
with” on the third paragraph. The words to be inserted 
are: IN THE PROMOTION OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). What 
does the Committee say? 

MS. AQUINO. We accept the amendment, except 
that it might sound a bit awkward because the word 
“promote” appears already in the beginning of the 
sentence. But in principle, we accept the proposed 
amendment. 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Mr. Presiding Officer. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Rosario Braid is recognized. 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Would Commissioner Foz 
accept an amendment to his amendment? Instead of 
“PROMOTION,” how about the word ACHIEVEMENT 
so there will be no redundancy. So it will read: “IN 
THE ACHIEVEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE.” 

MR. FOZ. “IN THE REALIZATION OF INDUS- 
TRIAL PEACE.” 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). So, 
the word now is “REALIZATION.” What does the 
Committee say? 

MS. AQUINO. We accept the amendment. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
proposed amendment is accepted. 

Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears 
none; the amendment is approved. 

The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. There are no more proponents of 
amendments to Section 3, so I ask that a vote be taken 
on the whole Section 3 after its reading. 

MR. ROMULO. May we ask the high-speed train to 
slow down a bit because the Committee has some 
suggestions. 

MS. QUESADA. Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like 
to propose an amendment which has been accepted by 
the members of the Committee and that is, to bring 
back the original provision which reads: “The State 
shall afford FULL protection to labor, LOCAL AND 
OVERSEAS, ORGANIZED AND UNORGANIZED, 
and promote full employment and equality of em- 
ployment opportunities for all.” 

In the public hearing the problems of unorganized 
as well as of the overseas or migrant workers have 
often been mentioned. The reason we did not have any 
special section for this particular group is because of 
this one statement that would already cover the concern 
for these particular members of the labor sector. So, 
as we had already provided such protection to fisher- 
men and to farmworkers, I believe . . . 

MR. FOZ. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

MR. JAMIR. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Presiding 
Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Quesada was just about to finish her sentence; 
will the Commissioner continue. 


106 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


MS. QUESADA. As I was saying, we have already 
provided a special provision for fishermen, and the 
inclusion of this particular provision would already put 
the stress that we are considering the plight of the 
unorganized and overseas workers. 

This was in the original provision but was deleted 
because of the demand for brevity. I have appealed 
and the Committee has reconsidered this particular 
provision. 

MR. JAMIR. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Jamir is recognized. 

MR. JAMIR. May I know whether that is a recon- 
sideration? 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
Floor Leader will respond to that because it is the 
recollection of the Chair that this first sentence has 
already been approved. Will the Floor Leader please 
respond to the parliamentary inquiry of Commissioner 
Jamir? 


RESUMPTION OF SESSION 

At 6:00 p.m., the session was resumed. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
session is resumed. 

Is it the understanding of the Chair, Commissioner 
Foz, that in the approved amendment on paragraph 3 
which reads “in the realization of industrial peace,” the 
Commissioner would wish to amend the word “realiza- 
tion” to some other word? 

MR. FOZ. The amendment is to change the phrase 
“in the realization of industrial peace” to the following 
phrase: “TO FOSTER industrial peace.” 

May we know the reaction of the Committee? 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
Chair will now treat this as a primary amendment to an 
approved amendment. 

What does the Committee say? 

MS. AQUINO. We accept the amendment. 


MR. RAMA. It seems that there needs to be a motion 
tor reconsideration. 

« 

MR. FOZ. Mr. Presiding Officer, before we go into 
such a motion for reconsideration, I would like to go 
ac to a previous amendment which was accepted by 
the Committee regarding the phrase “in the realization 
peace.” I think the more proper word is 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
proposed amendment is accepted. 

Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears 
none; the amendment is approved. 

The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. I ask that Commissioner Quesada be 
recognized. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Just a 
moment, please. Let us put everything in order. The 
phrase in the realization of industrial peace” has been 
accepted by the Committee and since nobody objected, 
it was approved by the body. So, the Gentleman is now 
asking for a reconsideration of the approval of his 
amendment, “in the realization of industrial peace.” 


MR. JAMIR. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Jamir is recognized. 

The Floor Leader will please respond once more to 
the parliamentary inquiry. 


MR. FOZ. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, and this has the 
clear^ce of the Committee. I would like to change the 
word realization” to “FURTHERANCE of industrial 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER 
does the Committee say? 


(Mr. Maambong). What 


MR. RAMA. What is the parliamentary inquiry? 

MR. JAMIR. My parliamentary inquiry is whether the 
statement of Commissioner Quesada is a motion for 
reconsideration. 

MS. AQUINO. Mr. Presiding Officer. 


MS. AQUINO. For a while, 
on the alternative formula. 


we are trying to agree 


the presiding officer (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Aquino is recognized. 


SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
Chair declares a suspension of the session. 

It was 5:59 p.m. 


MS. AQUINO. The Committee volunteers to answer 
the question. If the Gentleman remembers, yesterday 
when we decided to vote on paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
Section 3, they were subject to the proposed recasting 
by Commissioner Colay co. 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


107 


MR. JAMIR. So, this is not a reconsideration. 

MS. AQUINO. This is not a reconsideration. The 
Committee, on its own initiative, recasted the whole 
paragraphs in cooperation with some of the Com- 
missioners who have shown interest in this particular 
section, and the omission originally agreed upon is now 
being subjected to another amendment. 

MR. JAMIR. But I understand that we have already 
approved the first paragraph. 

MS. AQUINO. We did. But if I remember correctly, 
it was subject to recasting. 

MR. JAMIR. In that case, Mr. Presiding Officer, I am 
making it of record that I will file a motion for recon- 
sideration of the second sentence of Section 5. I voted 
in favor of this and tomorrow, at the opportune time, I 
will ask for a reconsideration so that I may be able to 
introduce my amendment. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
Chair takes note of that reservation. 

Commissioner Aquino is recognized. 

MR. JAMIR. Thank you. 

MS. AQUINO. The particular reservation on the 
recasting by Justice Colayco pertained only to Section 
3. But the Gentleman filed a motion for reconsidera- 
tion. 

MR. JAMIR. But I am now making it of record my 
right to ask for a reconsideration of the second sentence 
of Section 5 because I voted in favor of that. 

MS. AQUINO. That is independent of the proceed- 
ings on Section 3 . 

MR. JAMIR. Yes, that is independent; that is dif- 
ferent. 

MS. AQUINO. Yes, I was confused because the 
Gentleman mentioned it immediately after our delibera- 
tions on Section 3. 

MR. JAMIR. No, I am afraid that the hour is quite 
late, that is why I rushed to make of record my motion 
for reconsideration. 

MS. AQUINO. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). That 
reservation. Commissioner Jamir, has already been 
noted by the Chair. We will now address ourselves to the 
proposed amendment on tlie first paragraph of Section 
3 to add, after the word “labor” on, the first line, 
“LOCAL AND OVERSEAS, ORGANIZED AND UN- 


ORGANIZED” and a comma (,). Is that the correct 
amendment. Commissioner Quesada? 

MS. QUESADA. “The State shall afford FULL 
protection to labor, LOCAL AND OVERSEAS, OR- 
GANIZED AND UNORGANIZED, and promote full 
employment and equality of employment opportunities 
for all.” 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). What 
does the Committee say? 

MR. SARMIENTO. Mr. Presiding Officer, in support 
of Commissioner Quesada’s manifestation, I move for 
the reconsideration of Section 3 to incorporate all her 
amendments. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). It has 
already been clarified by Commissioner Aquino that 
there was merely a recasting of the section; so, there is 
no need for a reconsideration. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Then I withdraw my motion, 
Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
motion for reconsideration is withdrawn. 

What does the Committee say to the proposed 
amendment of Commissioner Quesada? 

MS. AQUINO. Yes, we accept the proposed amend- 
ment. 

the presiding officer (Mr. Maambong). The 
proposed amendment is accepted by the Committee. 

Is there any objection to the proposed amendment? 
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is 

approved. 

The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR- RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer, there are no more 
registered amenders to this section and I do not think 
there are suggestions from the Committee; so, I ask that 
we take a vote on the whole Section 3 . 

MR. GASCON. I would like to make a clarification 
on the second paragraph of Section 3. 

the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Gascon is recognized. 

MR- GASCON. Just for the record, as we approved it 
last Wednesday, on the third line of the second para- 
graph, after “wage,” the body approved a period (.) and 
the phrase “they shall also participate.” To make it 
clear, the last phrase of that sentence only refers to 
participation in policy- and decision-making and not to 
“the security of tenure, just and humane conditions. 


108 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


and the living wage.” This was approved by a vote of 35 
in favor and 2 against. This was the Bemas amendment. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Will 
anybody respond to that statement of Commissioner 
Gascon? 

MS. AQUINO. The Committee accepts the amend- 
ment. It is a matter of restyling. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). We 
are now ready to put the whole Section 3 to a vote. For 
the benefit of all the Members, I would suggest that one 
of the Committee members, who is in complete posses- 
sion of all the amendments, read the whole Section 3. 

MR. FOZ. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Foz is recognized. 

MR. FOZ. This is a minor point but it is important. 
On paragraph 2, line 3, after “activities,” there should 
be a comma (,). 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
Gentleman is presenting a perfecting amendment by 
adding a comma (,)? 

MR. FOZ. There was an amendment in the previous 
draft. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). What 
does the Committee say? 

MS. AQUINO. The Committee accepts the amend- 
ment. 


“The State shall promote the principle of shared 
responsibility between workers and employers and the 
preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, 
including conciliation, and the enforcement of their 
mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace. 

“The State shall regulate the relations between 
workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to 
its just share in the fruits of production and the right of 
enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, ex- 
pansion and growth.” 

VOTING 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). As 
many as are in favor of the whole Section 3, please raise 
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.) 

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No 
Member raised his hand.) 

The results show 34 votes in favor and none against; 
the whole Section 3 is approved. 

MR. COLAYCO. May I explain my vote of 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Colay CO is recognized. 


COMMISSIONER COLAYCO 
EXPLAINS HIS VOTE 

MR. COLAYCO. I am constrained to vote ^ 
because I agree with the main thrust of this section. But 
I want to make it of record that I still believe we are too 
profligate and generous with words. 

Thank you. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Is 
there any objection to that perfecting amendment? 
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is 
approved. 

Will the Committee please read the whole Section 3 

so that everybody will understand before we take a 
vote. 


to A afford full protect 

Ind nromn^ Overseas, organized and unorganh 
and promote ful employment and equaUty of empl 
ment opportunities for all. ^ ^ ^ 

It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to ' 
organ, zat, on collective bargaining and negotiatk 
peaceful and concerted acUvities, including the righ' 
stnke m accordance w„h law. They shall L enUtle, 
secunty of tenure, humane conditions of work an 
living wage. They shall also participate in poUcy 
decision-making processes affecting their rights 
benefits as may be provided by law. 


MR. RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. We now move on to Section 13 as 
denominated under the subtitle “Health.” 

MS. AQUINO. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Aquino is recognized. 

SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

MS. AQUINO. The Committee requests a suspension 
of session. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 

session is suspended. 

* 

It was 6:1 1 p.m. 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


109 


RESUMPTION OF SESSION 

At 6:16 p.m., the session was resumed. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
session is resumed. 

The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer, there is a con- 
sensus among the Commissioners tliat we jump to tlie 
section under the subtitle “Women.” 

May I ask that the foremost expert in women, Com- 
missioner Romulo, be recognized. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Romulo, the expert in women, is recognized. 
(Laughter) 

MR. ROMULO. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

My amendment is to combme Sections 16 and 17 to 
read as follows: “The State shall PROTECT THE work- 
ing women by providing SAFE AND HEALTHFUL 
working conditions, PARTICULARLY RELATING to 
their maternal functions, AND SUCH facilities AS will 
RELEASE THEIR ENERGIES AND TALENTS FOR 
the service of the NATION.” 

MS. AQUINO. The Committee joyfully accepts the 
amendment. 

MR. BENGZON. We accept the amendment. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
Chair would like a clarification first. On the fourth line 
of the draft, the Commissioner has “AND SUCH 
FACILITIES AS WILL LIBERATE”; the Gentleman 
changed it to another word. 

MR. ROMULO. Yes, because Commissioners such as 
Commissioners Regalado, Ople and Azcuna have con- 
tributed to the metamorphosis of this paragraph. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). So, 
instead of “LIBERATE,” what is it now? 

MR. ROMULO. “RELEASE.” 

MR. OPLE. Will the proponent accept a minor 
amendment? 

the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Ople is recognized. 

MR. ROMULO. I will consider it. 

MR. OPLE. “The State shall PROVIDE FACILITIES 
TO RELEASE THE ENERGIES AND TALENTS.” Is it 
facilities or opportunities that release energies and 
talents? 


MR. ROMULO. I took it from the draft of the Com- 
mittee, and it said “facilities.” I myself am not sure 
what those facilities consist of. (Laughter) But the 
Committee has accepted my amendment, so may I refer 
it to the Committee? 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Rosario Braid is recognized. 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. May I just make an amend- 
ment to tlie amendment and that is by including a 
phrase that will accommodate the disadvantaged 
women. Tliis provision is for working women and 
although many women are marginalized, there are some 
who are more marginalized than others; namely, the 
illiterates, particularly in terms of working conditions. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Where 
does Commissioner Rosario Braid propose to insert the 
word “DISADVANTAGED”? 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. “Working women” usually 
connotes working in the formal economy. There are 
illiterates. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
Committee has accepted the proposed amendment of 
Commissioner Romulo. But probably, we should first 
dispose of the proposed amendment of Commissioner 
Rosario Braid. What does the Committee say to that? 

MS. AQUINO. The Committee believes that it is an 
unnecessary surplusage and we regret that we cannot 
accept it. 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. “Working women” usually 
connotes working in the formal economy. There are 
many women who do not really work in the formal 
workplace. They are marginalized and we would like to 
include them. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). 
The Committee which has accepted the proposed 
amendment of Commissioner Romulo does not seem 
to be in favor of accepting Commissioner Rosario 
Braid’s proposed amendment to the amendment. 

Will the Commissioner insist on her amendment? 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. I would not mind if we are 
able to come up with a provision that will really address 
itself to the marginalized women where the concern is 
more than just providing them safe and healthful 
conditions. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). 
The Chair suggests that we first dispose of the primary 
amendment after which we can probably take up the 
amendment to the amendment. 


no 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


The parliamentary situation is that we have a pro- 
posed amendment which has been accepted by the 
Committee. 

MR. OPLE. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Ople is recognized. 

MR. OPLE. May I return to my previous remark 
which has the embryo of a proposed amendment. I 
thought that to complete the sense of the sentence, I 
could invite the Committee to consider adding AND 
OPPORTUNITIES after “facilities” so that it will read: 
“facilities AND OPPORTUNITIES AS will RELEASE 
THEIR ENERGIES AND TALENTS.” 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Will 
the Committee respond to that? 


THE PRESIDENT. May I just offer a comment. 
I do not see why we will need these facilities to release 
our energies. Our energies are there but these facilities 
will enhance or, in other words, make our energies 
perhaps more productive. But “ENHANCE,” 1 believe, 
is a better word than “RELEASE.” 

MR. SARMIENTO. Besides, Mr. Presiding Officer, the 
word “RELEASE” has a malicious connotation. 

THE PRESIDENT. I support that statement, Mr. 
Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
parliamentary situation is that the proposed amendment 
to change the word “RELEASE” to “ENHANCE” has 
been presented by the Chair to the Committee but the 
Committee threw it back to the proponent. Com- 
missioner Romulo. So we will now hear from Commis- 
sioner Romulo who will give us the right interpretation. 


MR. SARMIENTO. Mr. Presiding Officer, before the 
Committee responds, will Commissioner Ople yield to 
an aihendment to his amendment? 

Instead of using “RELEASE,” we use ENHANCE so 
that it will read: “ENHANCE THEIR ENERGIES AND 
TALENTS.” 


MR. OPLE. The enhancement is an additive in order 
to improve without changing. 


What about RELEASE AND EN- 


MR. OPLE. Yes, it will diminish the meaning of 

release.” (laug/zter) 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Per- 
aps we should present that formulation to the Commit- 
tee because this amendment has already been accepted 
by the Committee and it is actually in its jurisdiction. 

What does the Committee say to the proposed 
amendment of Commissioner Sarmiento? 


MS. AQUINO. We would like the advice of the 

ongmal proponent, Commissioner Romulo, on this 
matter. 


MR. SARMIENTO. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Cor 
missioner Sarmiento is recognized whUe Commission 
Romulo IS still busy with something else. 

THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Presiding Officer. 


MS. NIEVA. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I address a 
question to the proponent of the amendment? 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Nieva may proceed. 

MS. NIEVA. Does the Commissioner prefer releasing 
whatever energies to promoting the welfare and well- 
being of women? 

MR. ROMULO. I was trying to compress the two 

ideas. Actually, my original wording was “LIBERA 1 . 

MS. NIEVA. But how about the welfare and well- 
being of women? Is it still encompassed? 

MR. ROMULO. How about “HARNESS THEIR 
ENERGIES AND TALENTS”? 

MS. NIEVA. I do not know. I am not so concerned 
about the energies and talents; I think the welfare an 
well-being of women is more important since this is a 
social justice provision. It is my personal feeling that vve 
placed this provision to protect the welfare and well- 
being of women and not so much to harness their 
talents and capabilities for nation-building. The protec- 
tion of the welfare and well-being of women, for me, is 
basic. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). May 
the Chair ask a clarification on that? The proponent 
does not accept the change of the word “RELEASE” to 
“ENHANCE.” 


SUSPENSION OF SESSION 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
President is recognized. 


MR. ROMULO. Mr. Presiding Officer, may we ask for 
a suspension of the session? 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


in 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
session is suspended for one minute. 

It was 6:27 p.m. 

RESUMPTION OF SESSION 

At 6:31 p.m., the session was resumed. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
session is resumed. 

Has Commissioner Romulo conferred with the 
Committee? 

MR. ROMULO. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. After 
having released our energies in combination with the 
Committee, we have agreed on a common amendment. 
Commissioner Aquino will now read it. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Aquino is recognized. 

MS. AQUINO. The section will read: “The State shall 
PROTECT THE working women by providing SAFE 
AND HEALTHFUL working conditions, TAKING 
INTO ACCOUNT their maternal functions, AND SUCH 
facilities AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT will EN- 
HANCE THEIR WELFARE AND WELL-BEING TO 
REALIZE THEIR FULL POTENTIAL IN the service of 
the NATION.” 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Has 
the proponent heard the formulation? Is that what the 
Commissioner agreed on? 

MR. ROMULO. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Is 
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the 
amendment is approved. 

MR- RAMA. There are no more proponents of any 
amendments to the section on women. So, I ask that we 
vote on the whole section. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). May 
the Chair know from Commissioner Romulo what 
would be the numbering of the section now, considering 
that this is proposed to be the combination of Sections 
16 and 17? 

MR. ROMULO. Section 17 is now deleted and com- 
bined with Section 16. 

MR. RAMA. May I ask the Committee to read the 
full text of Section 16. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Will 
the Committee now read the whole Section 16 for 
purposes of voting? 


MS. NIEVA. “The State shall PROTECT THE work- 
ing women by providing SAFE AND HEALTHFUL 
working conditions, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT their 
maternal functions, AND SUCH facilities AND OP- 
PORTUNITIES THAT will ENHANCE THEIR WEL- 
FARE AND WELL-BEING TO REALIZE THEIR 
FULL POTENTIAL IN the service of the NATION.” 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
Chair is now putting Section 16, as read, to a vote. 

Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears 
none; Section 16 is approved. 

The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. Before we adjourn, Mr. Presiding 
Officer, there is only one proponent of amendments to 
all the three provisions under the subtitle “Minors.” 
May I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized? 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Davide is recognized. 

MR. DAVIDE. The second sentence on the section on 
“Minors” will read as follows: INFANTS, PARTICU- 
LARLY ORPHANS AND ABANDONED CHILDREN, 
ARE LIKEWISE ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION 
OF THE STATE. 

MR. GASCON. Will Commissioner Davide accept an 
amendment? 

MR. DAVIDE. May I hear it, Mr. Presiding Officer? 

MR. GASCON. Delete the word “PARTICULARLY” 
because orphans and abandoned children may not 
necessarily be infants. 

MR. DAVIDE. The amendment is gladly accepted. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). What 
does the Committee say? 

MS. NIEVA. We accept the amendment. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com 
missioner Davide, as of the moment, that section will b( 
Section 18. Is that correct? 

MR. DAVIDE. Yes, it would be renumbered ac 
cordingly. But it will be a new sentence to what appear 
to be Section 1 8 under the heading “Minors.” 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Th( 
proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide has beei 
accepted by the Committee. 

Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hear.- 
none; the amendment is approved. 


112 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


MS. NIEVA. Are we to understand that that replaces • 
the whole section? 

MR. BENGZON. Was that an additional paragraph or 
a replacement of the existing provision? 


MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Why 
do we not just say “MINORS” and include working 
minors, nonworking minors and sick minors? 


MR. DAVIDE. It is an additional sentence. So, may Commmissioner Davide is recognized, 
we request a vote on the whole section. 

MR. DAVIDE. There is still a distinction between 

MS. NIEVA. So, how would the entire section read? “minors” and “infants.” 


MR. DAVIDE. The entire section will read; “THE 
STATE SHALL PROVIDE SPECIAL PROTECTION 
TO MINORS ESPECIALLY WORKING MINORS, AND 
SHALL PROHIBIT THEIR EXPLOITATION AND IN- 
SURE THEIR FULL DEVELOPMENT. INFANTS, 
ORPHANS AND ABANDONED CHILDREN ARE 
LIKEWISE ENTITLED TO THE SPECIAL PROTEC- 
TION OF THE STATE.” 

MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer. 


MR. MONSOD. No, I am only suggesting that we 
delete the words “ESPECIALLY WORKING MINORS” 
because we are already stating “SPECIAL PROTEC- 
TION TO” and then enumerate. So, a minor is part of 
that phrase. 

MR. SUAREZ. Mr. Presiding Officer, when the 
Gentleman speaks of working minors, I suppose we are 
referring to minors allowed to work under the law. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Monsod is recognized. 

“cm^T j’^st combine 

provide special PROTECTION 
TO MINORS, INFANTS . . .” 


in Gentleman wants it insertei 

ooA T provision wiU read; “THE ST AT] 

nPxic provide SPECIAL PROTECTION TO Ih 
abandoned CHILDREN ANl 
WORKING MINORS, AN) 
iilPiPL prohibit their exploitation AN) 
INSURE THEIR FULL DEVELOPMENT.” That woul 
be only one sentence then. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Is that 
an acceptable formulation to the Committee? 


MR. DAVIDE. Yes. 

MR. SUAREZ. Not like an ordinary newsboy, for 
example, selling newspapers at street intersections. 

MR. DAVIDE. That is correct, Mr. Presiding Officer 
This would refer, for instance, to those allowed to work 
in apprenticeship. 

MR. SUAREZ. Like in McDonald’s, for example. 

MR. DAVIDE. We also have to consider minor young 
girls being abused by some enterprising businessmen m 
indecent acts or shows. These are the main concerns. 

MR. SUAREZ. The Commissioner would not be 
extending any kind of protection by the State to those 
newsboys whom we see every morning? 


MR. TINGSON. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

P^^^HING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Co 
missioner Tingson is recognized. 

th^'^iiMe^k^^^ ^ j^st inquire? It seems to i 
minors? ^ referring to work; 


MR. DAVIDE. They would be included because the 
phrase is “ESPECIALLY WORKING MINORS, 
meaning to say, that the protection would be to all but 
special emphasis should be given to working minors. 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Pres- 
iding Officer. 


MR. DAVIDE. Yes. 

MR. TINGSON. May I please have an explanati< 

Philippines, we still class 
persons below 21 as minors, but above 14 or even ab 
13, they can already work. We would like to give spe 
protection to that age level. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). What 
is the parliamentary inquiry of Commissioner Sar- 
miento? 

MR. SARMIENTO. I understand, Mr. Presiding Of- 
ficer, that we have a provision on minors and children in 
the Declaration of Principles. Is this a repetition of that 
provision? May we be enlightened on this point? 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


113 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). I am 
not particularly aware of that provision in the Declara- 
tion of Principles, but perhaps Commissioner Davide 
could respond to the parliamentary inquiry. 

MR. DAVIDE. I understand that if the proposed 
Declaration of Principles would only be a copy of the 
1973 provision that the State shall assist the youth in 
their social, physical and intellectual development, that 
would be completely an entirely different concept. It 
would cover the youth but it is a very broad mandate 
or principle. This is a specific one. 


Davide or is it a motion to transfer this provision to 
the Declaration of Principles? We will have to present 
that before the Committee. 

MR. DAVIDE. As an amendment to the proposed 
section in the Declaration of Principles. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). 
This is properly Section 18; it is properly under the 
jurisdiction of the Committee. So, we have to ask the 
Committee about it. 


MR. SARMIENTO. I understand, Mr. Presiding 
Officer, from the member of the Committee on Declara- 
tion of Principles that we have a similar provision. May 
I ask Commissioner Tingson to enlighten us on this 
point. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com- 
missioner Tingson is recognized. 

MR. TINGSON. I have in my possession the reported 
section. It reads: 

The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall 
protect and strengthen the family as a basic social institu- 
tion. The State shall equally protect the life of the motlier 
and the life of the unborn from the moment of conception. 
The natural right and duty of parents in tlie rearing of the 
youth for civic efficiency in the development of moral 
character shall receive tlie aid and support of tlie govern- 
ment. 

The last paragraph of Section 10 reads: 

The State shall protect children from all forms of 
neglect, cruelty and exploitation particularly in conditions 
harmful to their physical, mental or moral well-being. 

So, that is covered in our Declaration of Principles. 


MS. NIEVA. Yes, we agree. 

MR. BENGZON. We agree that this be transferred 
to the Declaration of Principles. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). 
That solves the problem then. 

The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. There are only two more sections, 
Mr. Presiding Officer, apart from health. This is 
under the subtitle “Role and Rights of People s Or- 
ganization.” There is only one proponent and he has 
an amendment to these two sections. May I ask that 
Commissioner Davide be recognized? 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). 
Before the Chair recognizes Commissioner Davide, we 
have here the provision on Role and Rights of 
People’s Organization, Sections 19 and 20. Does the 
Committee have any formulation other than the one 
which I have? 

MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer. 


MR. DAVIDE. My proposal then would be to 
delete this particular heading and to transfer it to the 
Declaration of Principles. In other words, we make 
reservations for possible amendments to the Declara- 
tion of Principles and State Policy. 

the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
Chair takes note of the mtention of Commissioner 
Davide. But before we present that to the Committee, 
we have to dispose of the parliamentary inquiry of 
Commissioner Sarmiento, considering the reading of 
the provision on minors in the Declaration of Princi- 
ples. What is now the pleasure of the Gentleman? 

MR. SARMIENTO. With that clarification, I 
withdraw my parliamentary inquiry. It has been 
completely satisfied. 

the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). 
There is now a pending intention of Commissioner 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). 
Commissioner Monsod is recognized. 

MR. MONSOD. I am a member of the Committee 
but I would like to ask for a definition of “people’s 
organizations.” 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). 
Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized 


19 


on Sections 

and 20. Did we skip the provisions on health? 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). We 
did not, we only deferred consideration of the pro- 
visions on health. 


114 


FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986 


MS. NIEVA. Mr. Presiding Officer, some members 
of the Committee say that they are too tired to tackle 
these provisions tonight and they think there may be 
more changes than we have anticipated. We suggest 
to defer this until tomorrow. 

MR. RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The 
Floor Leader is recognized. 


ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION 

MR. RAMA. I ask that we adjourn the session until 
tomorrow. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). 
Is there any objection to the motion to adjourn? 
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the session is adjourned 
until tomorrow at nine o’clock in the morning. 

It was 6:47 p.m. 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


115 


R.C.C. NO. 52 
Saturday, August 9, 1986 


OPENING OF SESSION 

At 9:25 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia 
Munoz Palma, opened the session. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is called to order. 

NATIONAL ANTHEM 

THE PRESIDENT. Everybody will please rise to sing 
the National Anthem. 

Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem. 

THE PRESIDENT. Everybody will please remain 
standing for the Prayer to be led by the Honorable 
Crispino M. de Castro. 

Everybody remained standing for the Prayer. 

PRAYER 

MR. DE CASTRO. Almighty God; We beseech Thee 
once again to guide our minds and our hearts so that the 
thoughts and feelings that may emanate from each of us 
will be those of the Filipmo people on whose behalf we 
seek to fashion a fundamental law that shall embody 
our collective ideals and aspirations. 

Enlighten us, O Lord. Open our eyes and minds. Give 
us the courage and the strength to see and understand 
those ideals and proposals that may differ from our 
own. 

Let the light of reason shine on our discussions and 
debates so that we may exchange ideas, thoughts and 
arguments with truth, clarity and sincerity towards 
democratic ideals. This, our people expect from us. 

Help us, O Lord, to finish this Constitution as early 
as possible because millions of Filipinos are awaiting the 
day when we shall live in peace and in glory. 

Thank you, O Lord, Amen. 

roll call 

THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary-General will call 
the roll. 

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading: 

Abubakar Present* Aquino Present* 

Alonto Present* Azcuna Present 


Bacani 

. . Present 

Nolledo . . . . 

. . Present 

Bengzon 

. . Present* 

Ople 

. . Present* 

Bennagen . . . . 

. . Present 

Padilla 

. . Present* 

Bernas 

, . Present 

Quesada . . . . 

. . Present 

Rosario Braid . . 

. Present 

Rama 

. . Present 

Brocka 

. Present 

Regalado . . . . 

. . Present 

Calderon 

. Present* 

Reyes de los . 

. . Present 

Castro de . . . . 

. Present 

Rigos 

. . Present 

Colayco 

. Present* 

Rodrigo . . . . 

. . Present 

Concepcion . . . 

. Present 

Romulo . . . . 

. . Present 

Davide 

. Present 

Rosales 

. . Present 

Foz 

. Present 

Sarmiento . . . 

. . Present* 

Garcia 

. Present* 

Suarez 

. . Present 

Gascon 

. Absent 

Sumulong . . . 

. . Present 

Guingona . . . . 

. Absent 

Tadeo 

. . Present 

Jamir 

. Present 

Tan 

. . Present 

Laurel 

. Present* 

Tingson . . . . 

. . Present 

Lerum 

. Present 

Trenas 

. . Present 

Maambong . . . 

. Present 

Uka 

. . Present 

Monsod 

. Present* 

Villacorta . . . 

. . Present* 

Natividad . . . . 

. Present* 

Villegas 

. . Present 

Nieva 

. Absent 




The President is present. 

The roll call shows 3 1 Members responded to the caU. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair declares the presence of 
a quorum. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I move that we dis- 
pense with the reading of the Journal of yesterday’s 
session. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) 
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. 

APPROVAL OF JOURNAL 

MR. RAMA. I move that we approve the Journal of 
yesterday’s session. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) 
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I move that we pro- 
ceed to the Reference of Business. 


♦Appeared after the roll call 


116 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1 986 


THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) 
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. 

The Secretary-General will read the Reference of 
Business. 


REFERENCE OF BUSINESS 

The Secretary-General read the following Com- 
munications, the President making the corresponding 
references: 


COMMUNICATIONS 

Radiogram from the Association of Philippine Phy- 
sicians in America, Inc., 1830 Mirmar Road, Munster, 
Indiana 46321, proposing an amendment to Section 7 
of Proposed Resolution No. 496 so as to enable a 
natural-bom Filipino citizen who lost his Philippine 
citizenship to acquire private lands. 

(Communication No. 500 - Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on the National Economy and 
Patrimony. 

Communication from the Philippine Union for Human 
Rights, 2215 Pedro Gil St., Sta. Ana, Metro Manila 
expressing its support for a draft proposal prohibiting 
the extension of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement 
beyond its expiry date in 1991. 

(Communication No. 501 - Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on General Provisions. 

Communication from the Board of Directors of the 
CEU Faculty and Allied Workers Union, expressing its 
solid support for the social justice program envisioned in 
the proposed Constitution and attaching thereto a copy 
of its proposal to convert CEU into a cooperative, 
hoping that the honorable Commissioners will find some 
pertinent and relevant information therein for the 
solution of the funding problem of the educational 
system in the private sector. 

(Communication No. 502 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Social Justice. 

Communication from Mr. Roberto G. Plata of Grepalife 
and six hundred ninety-nine other petitioners seeking 
to include in the new Constitution a provision obliging 
the State to protect the life of the unborn from the 
moment of conception. 

(Communication No. 503 - Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and 
Declaration of Principles. 


Communication from Messrs. Emerito P. Nacpil and 
Emmanuel G. Cleto, both of the United Methodist 
Church in the Philippines, proposing an amendment by 
substitution to Section 10 of Proposed Resolution 
No. 531 (Committee Report No. 3 1 ) on the separation 
and mutual autonomy of the Church and State. 

(Communication No. 504 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 


Letter from Mr. Abraham Sarmiento for Nationalist 
Alliance for Justice, Freedom and Democracy, urging 
the inclusion of provisions banning foreign military 
bases, and nuclear weapons and facilities from Philip- 
pine territory. 

(Communication No. 505 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on General Provisions. 

Letter from Mr. Miguel Resus of Diatagon, L.ianga, 
Surigao del Sur, suggesting, among others, that Filipino 
citizens abroad be allowed to vote; that every individual 
must be allowed to donate a portion of his tax obliga- 
tion to charitable, political, educational and sports 
purposes; and that dual citizenship may be allowed to 
Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship. 

(Communication No. 506 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 


Communication from the Philippine Association for the 
Advancement of Science, Inc. signed by Mr. Quin tin L. 
Kintanar, expressing its full support to Proposed Resol^ 
tion No. 222, entitled: “RESOLUTION ADOPTING 
PROVISIONS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 
FOR INCLUSION IN THE PROPOSED NEW CON- 
STITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIP- 
PINES.” 

(Communication No. 507 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Human Resources. 

Letter from Ms. Leticia L. de Leon of 7 Mother Ignacia 
Avenue, Quezon City, advocating the teaching of 
religion in both public and private schools, making this 
compulsory for Catholics to be taught the Catholic 
faith, the Protestants, the Protestant faith, and so forth. 

(Communication No. 508 - Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Human Resources. 

Letter from Mr. Amando R. Ortiz of M. H. del Pilar 
Street, Tabaco, AJbay, suggesting, among others, that 
coconut lands should not be covered by land reform and 


To the Committee on General Provisions. 


To the Steering Committee. 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


117 


that P.D. No. 27 be amended to give the heirs of land- 
owners shares of the property. 

(Communication No. 509 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Social Justice. 

Communication from the Philippine Institute of Civil 
Engineers, First Quezon City Chapter, Centroid Build- 
ing, 395 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, signed by Ms. 
Vivian M. de los Reyes, transmitting a Resolution 
addressed to President Corazon C. Aquino, requesting 
the adoption of a national policy requiring the utiliza- 
tion of services of qualified Filipino professionals and 
experts in all government projects which are funded by 
the Philippine government or by foreign loans. 

(Communication No. 510 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on the National Economy and 
Patrimony. 

Letter from Ms. Melba P. Maggay of the Institute for 
Studies in Asian Church and Culture, 4 Malinis Street, 
U.P. Village, Quezon City, endorsing the proposal of 
Konfes, a group of evangelical Christians, for the reten- 
tion of the text of Section 8, Article XV of the 1973 
Constitution regarding religious instruction in public 
elementary and high schools. 

(Communication No. 5 1 1 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on General Provisions. 

Letter from Mr. Horacio V. Marasigan of the Concerned 
Citizens of San Juan, Batangas, submitting his proposal 
regarding “THE STRATEGY FOR DISTRIBUTING 
the PATRIMONY OF THE NATION” and “RESO- 
LUTION ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF LAND AND 
ITS FRUITS.” 

(Communication No. 512 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on the National Economy and 
Patrimony. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. There is an important information from 
the Muslim world which Commissioner Uka will an- 
nounce. I ask that Commissioner Uka be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Uka is recog- 
nized. 

MR. UKA. Madam President, honorable Members of 
the Constitutional Commission: 


I have been requested by our other Commissioners, 
Honorable Alonto and Abubakar, that I inform the 
honorable Members of the Commission that one of the 
most important Muslim holidays, Hariraya Had], will be 
celebrated on Friday, August 15, 1986 by the 7 mUlion 
Muslims in the Philippines and about 1 bilLion Muslims 
all over the world. As a matter of fact, about 2,000 of 
our brother Muslims have left for the Holy City of 
Mecca. This is in celebration of the founding of the 
monotheistic faith in that part of the world by Father 
Abraham and his sacrifice of his son Ismael. And so, I 
just want to say that this is a very important occasion 
for us. 

Thank you very much. 

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, the Chairman and 
some of tlie members of the Committee on Social 
Justice are not yet here. May I ask for a suspension of 
the session for five minutes? 


SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended. 

It was 9:38 a.m. 

RESUMPTION OF SESSION 
At 9:44 a.m., the session was resumed. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized. 


CONSIDERATION OF 
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 534 
(Article on Social Justice) 

Continuation 

PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS 

MR. RAMA. We are now in the period of amend- 
ments on the Article on Social Justice. The Committee 
has suggested that we take up the last two sections 
under the title: Role and Rights of People’s Organiza- 

tions.” 

I so move. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) 
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. 

MR. RAMA. May I ask that Commissioner Davide be 
recognized. 


118 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


MR. DAVIDE. Thank you, Madam President. 

Before going into that, I understand that Commis- 
sioner Garcia has a proposed definition of people’s 
organization which needs to be incorporated into the 
proposed Section 19. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is it Commissioner Garcia or 
Commissioner Monsod? 


SUSPENSION OF SESSION 
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair suspends the session for 
a few minutes. 

It was 9:4 7 a. m. 

RESUMPTION OF SESSION 
At 9:54 a.m., the session was resumed. 


MR. DAVIDE. Commissioners Garcia and Monsod; it 
was Commissioner Monsod who requested a definition. 

THE PRESIDENT. Can we call this later when Com- 
missioner Monsod is around? 

How about the section on health? Last night, we sus- 
pended the discussion on the Article on Social Justice 
with respect to health. Are we ready? Commissioner 
Quesada is already here. 


THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. The Committee is now ready to discuss 
amendments to the provision under the section on 
health. So may I ask that Commissioner Quesada be 
recognized. 


MR. RAMA. Madam President, there are still some 
st^atements or explanations of Commissioner Quesada 
that are bemg mimeographed or xeroxed and she 


nized^ PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide 


IS recog- 


stamtoe^thy/^^ Madam President, if it is the under- 
mv u ‘^^^^ideration of the definition 

s^ntenr^nf ^ foUowing: In the opening 

“the- pna ^ deletion of the wordj 

Justice ^ will just read: “In the pursuit of Socia 

MR. BENNAGEN. It is accepted. 

^ introduce. 

amPi^H^ definition because I have somi 

amendments on it. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President, 
nized ^ PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recoj 

MR. BENNAGEN x, 

the definition of “people’ro?/"— ^ ^°P^ ° 
gested to be Section 21 I 

shared by the Committee but le^my^-® whether this i 

sonally. I am not in favor of bcludin^ ? r 
“people’s organizations” in thTlmf® ^ definifion o 
did not even include even as we want ^ 

of “social justice.” I do not see whv it f ^ definitio: 

to define peoples organizations” rather th™ "och 
justice. 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Quesada is recog- 
nized. 

MS. QUESADA. Thank you, Madam President. 

The honorable Commissioners have a copy of the 
amended version of the section on health which would 
include some explanatory notes. It is necessary to 
explain some of the concepts so that when one makes 
an amendment it will be in the light of the term of 
reference that has been used in this provision. I would 
like to acknowledge the fact that this change in the 
formulation has been influenced to a great extent by 
the amendment of Commissioner Romulo. So, Section 
13 will now read: “The State shall protect and pro- 
mote the right to HEALTH. To this end, it shall adopt 
an integrated and comprehensive APPROACH TO 
HEALTH DEVELOPMENT . . 

The new concept introduced here is the ‘ inte- 
grated and comprehensive approach,” and if it is an 
approach, it cannot just be to health care but to health 
development which would be more encompassing than 
just the provision of health care. So to continue: 
“. . . WHICH shall make essential goods, HEALTH and 
OTHER social services available to all citizens at af- 
fordable cost, with priority for the needs of the 
UNDERPRIVILEGED, . . has been substituted for 
the word “disadvantaged” to be in keeping with the 
other terms used in the other sections such as those in 
the Urban Land Reform and Housing where instead of 
the word “disadvantaged” the term “underprivileged” 
was used. Then “. . . the sick, women and children, 
aged and disabled.” 

The explanatory notes would explain the important 
concepts which are something new in this Constitution, 
one of which is the right to health. Everybody agrees 
that this is the first time that this right would ever be 
written in the Constitution. Health development is 
another concept that some might ask a few questions 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


119 


on. This would refer to the overall improvement of the 
level of health of the people to a higher level where 
people can live economically productive and socially 
satisfying lives. Health development would not just be 
dependent on the giving of health care, but also on the 
level of health resources available in'our environment 
such as water, toilets, anti-pollution devices, and all 
other social services which are necessary to improve 
the level of health of the people. 

These main concepts would probably have to be 
explained because they would serve as the bases for 
future legislation. This Member has been very conscious 
of the criticism levelled against nonlawyers that they 
are too verbose and are working on legislation rather 
than on constitutional provisions, so I would like just 
to use these terms. The integrated and comprehensive 
approach here contains principles on the means to 
achieve people’s right to health that could be adopted 
by future legislation. Such an approach would require 
the integration of many sectors to become involved in 
addressing the health problems of the people. It would 
mean improvements in food, housing, education, in 
purchasing power and access to health services; higher 
allocation of resources to health; more active participa- 
tion of the people in health efforts; a reorientation of 
health development strategies and the political will to 
act on policies and plans. 

But more specifically on health, the concept of in- 
tegration would imply the following; 

As I explained earlier when Commissioner Romulo 
introduced the concept of integration and compre- 
hensive health care, integration implies the need to 
unify the country’s health delivery system along the 
primary health care approach which is a commitment of 
the Philippine government to the 134 nations that 
signed the Alma Declaration in 1978, which sought to 
meet the goal of health for all in the year 2000. The 
State has to work out a mechanism by which the dif- 
ferent agencies or instrumentalities thereof would unify 
their efforts in addressing or satisfying the health care 
needs of the country. These instrumentalities would 
include the Ministry of Labor and Employment, Minis- 
try of Health, Ministry of Education, Culture and 
Sports, Ministry of National Defense, the private sector 
or nongovernmental organizations. 

Those who wanted to introduce some concepts such 
as appropriate technology and people’s participation 
and self-reliance would actually be unified in this 
primary health care approach because this would now 
include the concepts of people’s participation and multi- 
sectoral linkages. Health interlinks with agricultural, 
social development and national economic programs-. 

Integration is likewise envisioned as maximizing 
existing health resources, both of the government and of 
the nongovernment or private sector in the spirit of 
cooperation and collaboration. The State, however, 
is tasked to take the initiative m strengthening “intra- 
sectoral” efforts because it is very hard to work without 


a mandate. There is the territoriality of one ministry 
over the other, but one ministry works on its own. It 
never really works holistically so that we can come out 
with a picture of health of the people. So, whenever we 
talk of the state of the nation’s health, most likely it is 
just a reflection of the statistics derived from one minis- 
try. It does not report the statistics of the health situa- 
tion of our country covering other sectors like those in 
education, labor, the private sector or even in the 
Ministry of National Defense. The latter would have its 
own statistics — how many people died in combat or in 
accidents; how many actually got sick or died from 
other causes. This is another concept which we hope 
future legislation will work out. It is not the responsibi- 
lity of the subcommittee to work out the details 
because that would then bog us down into details which 
everybody is wont not to go into. 

Integration also envisions the health care system to 
blend western medicine with traditional and oriental 
health care modalities or approaches so that we will not 
be purely dependent on the western model of health 
care. Integration would also direct the health care sys- 
tem towards prevention rather than cure; health rather 
than illness; and being community-based rather than 
being hospital-centered in the delivery of health care 
services. 

In essence these clarifications could guide future 
legislators on the concept of comprehensive and in- 
tegrated approach to health development. 

The main consideration in the concept of compre- 
hensive approach is health development. This would 
mean the following: 

Health services would include health promotion with 
emphasis on health education. Examples of health pro- 
motion are physical fitness, personal hygiene, and food 
and nutrition programs. We have disease prevention or 
specific protection, such as immunizations to protect 
persons against specific diseases and use of protective 
wears or gears to protect from injuries or illness result- 
ing from dangerous substances in the work environment. 
It also includes early diagnosis and treatment so that 
people will not discover that they have cancer, heart 
diseases and other conditions late in the game, like when 
Commissioner Guingona discovered that he has a pro- 
blem with his gall bladder. It is good that he is now 
undergoing treatment. Then there is rehabilitation of 
the disabled. So, these are the coverage of a truly 
comprehensive health care. It does not just provide 
treatment but goes into promotion. 

Then health development should also take into 
consideration the common health problems of the 
country especially those affecting the majority of our 
people, like communicable diseases. The number 1 
killers of the country are pneumonia and tuberculosis 
which can be prevented. Other problems are gastro- 
enteritis, malnutrition, drug abuse, poor environ- 
mental sanitation, maternal and child health problems. 


120 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


and endemic diseases like malaria, schistosomiasis and 
filariasis. 

We are catching up with the so-called problems of 
more developed countries which are the degenerative 
diseases like cancer, cardiovascular diseases and mental 
illness. So these are the problems that health services 
should address. That is why the approach should be 
comprehensive. Comprehensive coverage likewise 
addresses the problems of particular population. In the 
field of labor, health services attend to the problems of 
workers who are exposed to certain work conditions. In 
the school setting, health services address the population 
problem. 

So, I would like to stress that a truly comprehensive 
approach to health care would require the educational 
component of health programs to enable people to be 
actively involved in organizing and mobilizing these 
programs. I would like to emphasize that this program 
on drug abuse is one of those programs that a compre- 
hensive approach to health development would have to 
address itself to. 


The fourth concept which should be clarified also for 
the record and for future legislation would be the 
phr^e. make essential goods, health and other social 
services available to citizens at affordable cost.” This 
phrase is to highhght the fact that health as a human 
nght cannot be enjoyed by the people unless these 
goods and services are made available and affordable to 
em especially the underprivileged sectors of our 
society, n fact, I would agree to the proposition that 
ere should be free medical care to the paupers, 
because this is one aspect of a truly just and humane 
If tu delivery system — that people need not die. 
ey cannot really afford medical care, then the State 

those who are classified as paupers. This 
Should make Commissioner Nolledo happy. 

the fifth, the phrase “the underprivileged, the 
children, aged and disabled” singles 
ou hese groups as disadvantaged in terms of access to 
adequate health services and resources. This being the 
r 1 C e on Social Justice has to single them out because 
ey are denied the right to health and the right to life. 

So, these are basically the concepts and the rest 
would be self-explanatory . 


The second section. Section 14, states: “The St 

monitor 

Dower fW 1 appropriate health m 

THE research RESPONSIVE 

BL^S^Th needs and PE 

the propoS‘orcI„"Sio'„« ‘"f “f ' 

STOnTvE ““ *»’«he°ph“se ‘1 

I^TpToblems™ health nee 


I thmk that the succeeding explanatory notes would 
already enlighten the Commissioner on what would be 
covered by this provision, so I need not go into the 


other details. Section 13 is the one I wanted to highlight 
because this is where most of the proposals will be 
coming from. 

Thank you. Madam President. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, 1 ask that Com- 
missioner Nolledo be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Nolledo is recog- 
nized. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you. Madam President. 

Commissioner Quesada said that my proposed amend- 
ment is deemed included in this provision. But I do not 
believe so because of the use of the term “affordable 
cost,” which does not exist in the vocabulary of 
paupers. They simply have no money to pay for 
medicines or medical care. 

I would like to insist on my amendment, with due 
respect to Commissioner Quesada and with the kindest 
indulgence of the Members of this Commission. I must 
be very frank that I was hesitant in presenting this 
amendment. But my conscience bothered me and 
dictated to me that I should pursue it before this Com- 
mission. Madam President, it is a truism that I slept with 
my conscience. 

I would like to explain this before I propose the 
amendment. I would like to submit it to the body for 
voting. This is a very emphatic provision that was 
initially objected to by my friend. Sister Christine Tan, 
on the ground that it will promote mendicancy but the 
question of whether it will promote mendicancy is on 
the matter of implementation. I think Congress can 
adopt measures to see to it that this will not promote 
mendicancy. 

I am insisting on this amendment. Madam President, 
because just like Sister Tan, my sister, Nelia (now Sister 
Idmara, S.Sp.S.) is also a nun at the Holy Spirit Con- 
vent, and with her, I really saw with my own eyes 
paupers dying because they had no medicines. 

Paupers go to government hospitals and are given 
prescriptions. However, the doctor would tell them to 
buy the medicines they need. But they have no money; 
they just depend on the limited charity of other people 
while the government has all the resources at its 
command. 

The second objection to my proposal is based on the 
need for big funding. I am a teacher of taxation in dif- 
ferent schools. Madam President. Pardon me for saying 
that the procedure of tax collection in the Philippines is 
very defective. An example is the residence tax. I know 
many people who are rich and who own landholdings 
yet they pay only PI. Likewise, when they file income 
tax returns, they falsify the amounts paid as residence 
tax in said returns. I call the attention of Commissioner 
Bienvenido Tan, who is the present Commissioner of the 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


121 


BIR. The government can impose a one-peso additional 
residence tax which can be termed as Residence Tax E 
or D. The government can raise funds through the sale 
of postage stamps as was done under the Anti-TB Stamp 
Law. The Anti-TB Stamp Law generates millions of 
pesos every year. Also, the government can tap private 
resources and invite the help of socially conscious 
corporations, like the San Miguel Corporation, the 
Ayala Corporation and others. It can also impose special 
levies. Likewise, the government has many sources while 
we, private individuals who are willing to help the 
paupers, have limited resources. 

I remember Senator Diokno telling me: “Pepe, please 
do something about the poor. Your Constitution must 
not only be nationalistic and must not only be pro- 
people but must be pro-poor.” While we talk. Madam 
President, of fighting for the rights of people, we forget 
to talk of people fighting for their lives because of 
poverty brought about by maladministration, antipathy 
and indifference on the part of the government. So 1 ask 
that the members of the Committee and the Members of 
this Commission be magnanimous. In the words of Jose 
Maria Escriva: “Magnanimity connotes largeness of 

heart wherein many can find refuge.” Let us not forget 
the anguish of the poor. For the information of the 
body, Commissioner Tan has told me she will let her 
heart rule over her head by voting for this amendment. 

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, I really sympa- 
thize with Commissioner Nolledo. As a matter of fact, it 
is a big struggle to actually put this in the provision. 
That would have a lot of implications and we would like 
to prevent the people being raised to a high level of 
aspiration only to be frustrated because of the inability 
of the present health care system to provide free 
medical care. That is why we settled for affordable or 
minimum cost. As a matter of fact, with the present 
administration, there are efforts to really address the 
problem of the paupers. In the City of Manila, the 
Ministry of Health is zeroing in on this particular 
problem. 

So, we are preparing a Constitution that is not just 
going to be relevant for this year or next but within this 
decade. We are preparing a Constitution that will be for 
the next generations. We hope that people will already 
learn how to be more conscious of health promotion 
and disease prevention. In addition, we really do not 
want to promote mendicancy. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I do not think so. Madam President. 

MR. COLAYCO. Madam President. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I think Commissioner Colayco has 
something to say. 

MR. BENGZON. Madam President, may the Commit- 
tee be given a chance to reply so that there will be order. 
After the Committee gives its reply, then perhaps the 


proponent and others who may support him can also 
give their comments. 

MR. COLAYCO. Madam President, what I have to 
say I think will help the Committee respond. I would 
like to give actual cases why this proposal of Com- 
missioner Nolledo can be considered an imperative. We 
have had occasions, particularly my wife, to bring poor 
people to the Philippine General Hospital in Manila, and 
the case is always that when medicines are needed, they 
are told to buy these at the drug stores outside the 
hospital. Now, these drug stores right in front of the 
Philippine General Hospital sell medicines at exorbitant 
prices. 

The poor people who go to the Philippine General 
Hospital need every help that our government can ex- 
tend. We know that the government allots a big sum of 
money for the purchase of medicines and drugs which 
are necessary. I do not see why this allotment cannot 
cover the medicines which are called for in most cases 
being attended to in government hospitals. To my sur- 
prise, it has always been the case that whatever the 
medicine may be, whatever the sickness may be — 
sometimes even simple fever - people are referred to 
commercial drug stores to buy their medicines. 

I, therefore, support 100 percent the proposal of 
Commissioner Nolledo. 

MS. QUESADA. Will Commissioner Nolledo please 
state his amendment. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Since the word “paupers” has 
attained an established legal meaning, the amendment 
will read as follows: THE STATE SHALL EXTEND 
FREE MEDICAL CARE TO PAUPERS. Paupers are 
those who have no source of livelihood or their sources 
of income are just enough to make their body and soul 
together. They really have no money. We cannot talk of 
affordable cost with respect to paupers. The State must 
exercise its parens patriae role. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is that an additional sentence? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, an additional sentence to 
Section 13. 

MR. DA VIDE. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DAVIDE. May I introduce an amendment to the 
proposal of Commissioner Nolledo. It will not be a new 
sentence but after the word “cost,” delete “with 
priority for the needs of the UNDERPRIVILEGED, the 
sick, women and children, aged and disabled” and in 
lieu thereof insert AND WHENEVER NECESSARY, 
FOR FREE ESPECIALLY TO THE UNDERPRIVI- 
LEGED AND THE DISADVANTAGED, so it will read: 


122 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


“affordable cost, AND WHENEVER NECESSARY, 
FOR FREE ESPECIALLY TO THE UNDERPRIVI- 
LEGED AND THE DISADVANTAGED.” 

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, it seems to me 
that Commissioner Davide’s amendment will also 
destroy the essence of the Committee amendments. It 
will expand the scope. I am talking only of paupers — 
those who have no sources of livelihood. The term 
“underprivileged” may cover those who are underem- 
ployed who may be able to afford medicines. I regret 
I cannot accept the amendment. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner NoUedo does not 
accept the proposed amendment of Commissioner 
Davide. 

Commissioner Bacani is recognized. 


clear in the explanatory note on page 3, that there 
should be medical care to the paupers. 

So, that is the sense and the objective of the Com- 
mittee. However, we cannot put it in black and white in 
the Constitution, otherwise it becomes an absolute 
mandate. And if the State would be unable to give free 
medical care for millions of reasons, for which it should 
not be blamed, the people will be disappointed and 
frustrated, and this might complicate matters. 

So, suppose the proposed amendment of Com- 
missioner Bacani becomes unattainable, what will 
happen? After all, the term “affordable cost” does not 
necessarily have to mean cash. It could mean that these 
people could pay with their services. We have a lot oT 
self-help programs. So, if these paupers cannot afford to 
pay cash, perhaps their relatives can render services to 
various health clinics. 


BISHOP BACANI. May I propose a change in the 
wording of the clause which rriight not render necessary 
anymore the addition of a new sentence. It will read as 
follows: “. . . IT SHALL ADOPT an integrated and 
comprehensive APPROACH TO health DEVELOP- 

essential goods, HEALTH and 
OTHER social services WITHIN THE REACH OF all 
Hb citizens ...” Then we continue on with the others. 


These are details which could be left to the Ministry 
of Health or to the government to implement. But for 
us to specifically state in the Constitution that every- 
thing is going to be free is very dangerous. Anyway, 
the intent of this Commission and that of the Commit- 
tee, as articulated in the explanatory note, is as much 
as possible to give free medical services, particularly 
to the paupers. 


THE PRE^DENT. We still have to dispose of Com 
missioner Nolledo’s amendment first. 

wm President, if the Committe. 

that th? ni,* and with the understandinj 

L shouMT ™ ^EACH” would meai 

3ble to afford, the: 
thpn T medical care by the government 

Bacani the amendment of Commissione 

mitt^ President, may the Com 

e e given a chance to articulate its thoughts? 

welfL^ate^We' do‘‘r, ' 

mendicancv Wp a ^ constitutionaliZ( 

people onfy to be *let dow 

blamed for it. ^ because we will all b( 

would wish to give ^ow much the Stab 

paupers and to all the noor t services to all th( 
it could, it would. ^ so. But i 

Commissioner Ouesada h^c 
with respect to this section on he’Sth"* 
think that anybody here has reaUyl^e 
and the work, with aU the order that he has, the wt 
that Commissioner Quesada has done her job. It is ver 


MS. QUESADA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Quesada is recog- 
nized. 

MS. QUESADA. Because of my sympathy to this 
particular cause, would Commissioner Nolledo be 
amenable to introducing the term PAUPERS after 
“the needs of the” so that it reads “with priority for 
the needs of the PAUPERS, the UNDERPRIVILEGED, 
the sick, women and children, aged and disabled, 
the understanding that the health care system shall 
provide free medical care services for these paupers who 
cannot afford such services that will entitle them to the 
right to health and the right to life. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, I am deeply 
grateful to Commissioner Quesada, but because of the 
existence of the term “affordable cost,” I think there 
will really be complications. 

I recommend that we adopt the suggestion of Com- 
missioner Bernas, Madam President. We are not creating 
a welfare state here, that is why we are concentrating 
the privilege only to paupers. Instead of saying “THE 
STATE SHALL EXTEND,” we will put THE STATE 
SHALL ENDEAVOR TO EXTEND FREE MEDICAL 
CARE TO PAUPERS. 

The word “ENDEAVOR” as suggested by Com- 
missioner Bernas will water down a little bit the provi- 
sion in the sense that the State shall try its best to 
extend free medical care to paupers. 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


123 


MS. QUESADA. Madam President, I think we would 
like this to be thrown to the body for a vote. The Com- 
mittee would not be united in its stand. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I will submit to the body. 

MS. QUESADA. I personally accept but I cannot 
speak for the entire Committee. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I thank tlie Commissioner very 
much for her sympathy. 

MR. RAMA. I move that we vote on the amendment. 

THE PRESIDENT. Let us vote first on Commissioner 
Nolledo’s proposed amendment. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I would like to include my friend. 
Reverend Father Benias, as a coauthor because the word 
“ENDEAVOR” changed the meaning substantially. 

THE PRESIDENT. May we have the Commissioner’s 
proposed amendment. 

MR. NOLLEDO. It reads: THE STATE SHALL EN- 
DEAVOR TO EXTEND FREE MEDICAL CARE TO 
PAUPERS. I think that is reasonable enough. 

MS. QUESADA. The Commissioner has convhiced 
the Committee. I think the Committee accepts that 
reformulation. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I thank the Commissioner very 
much and may God bless her. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) 
The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you. 

MR. BENGZON. Before anything else. Madam 
President, I move that this position paper prepared 
by Commissioner Quesada be integrated into the record 
in to to. * 

MS. QUESADA. Thank you. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) 
The Chair hears none; the motion of Commissioner 
Bengzon is approved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, Commissioner 
Rosario Braid seeks recognition. I ask that she be recog- 
nized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid is 
recognized. 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Madam President, I find 
Commissioner Quesada’s paper enlightening and com- 


prehensive but I would like to put also on record that in 
an earlier conversation between Minister Pardo de 
Tavera and Minister Bengzon, both have indicated one 
problem that, although implied here, has not been 
stressed; that is, the services are available but the people 
are indifferent and passive in the acceptance of these 
services. As noted, in the immunization program, 
although immunization is available, one out of two 
acceptors does not continue the immunization program. 
Both Ministers have indicated that a refocusing of their 
program would put emphasis on education and at- 
titudinal transformation. That is why they have ex- 
pressed concern with the mass media and all types of 
information that would effect the transformation of 
attitudes and passivity. This is one. 

The other concern is that in this decade where 
voluntarism is the model and where there is an attempt 
to really move towards the self-reliant use of backyard 
farming, backyard gardening, indigenous health and 
indigenous medicines, I would like to highlight the need 
for indigenous health resources and self-reliance. While 
we accept that for many years there will be focus on 
delivery of services, we would also like to highlight the 
equal importance of developing self-reliance because 
the indigenous and local resources are there. 

The third pomt has to do with Section 14 which is 
the need for an even distribution or regional distribution 
of health personnel. As statistics would show and I am 
sure that Commissioner Quesada would bear me out, 
there are adequate rural health workers totalling more 
than 92,000 and there is a total national ratio of 1 : 70 in 
the population, but there is uneven regional distribution 
of health workers. 

MR. BENGZON. May we, therefore, have the Com- 
missioner’s proposed amendment. 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Yes. The proposed amend- 

ment to Section 13 would retain everything that Com- 
missioner Quesada has submitted, except that I have 
pruned it down to 40 words which says: The State 

shall promote the right to HEALTH AND SHALL 
adopt a comprehensive APPROACH to health DE- 
VELOPMENT, make essential social services available 
to aU citizens PARTICULARLY the UNDERPRIVIL- 
EGED, at affordable cost AND ENCOURAGE SELF- 
RELIANCE THROUGH USE OF INDIGENOUS 
HEALTH RESOURCES. This is for Section 13. 

MS. QUESADA. Can we respond for every section 
and for every proposed amendment? 

We would like to assure Commissioner Rosario Braid 
that the concept of self-reliance and the use of indi- 
genous health resources are already integrated in the 
term comprehensive and integrated approach.” We just 
did not want to single out all these components of such 
an integrated and comprehensive approach to health 
development. Otherwise, we will miss out some of the 
important principles undergirding this approach. 


*See Appendix 


124 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


So, self-reliance is an objective where a primary 
health care program addresses itself to make people take 
care of their own health or the country to become self- 
reliant. Actually, it is encompassed in the explanatory 
note as is the meaning of integrated and comprehen- 
sive approach. 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Thank you. 

But using also the philosophy of the Committee in 
underscoring important concepts, I thought we could 
adopt this and use the word “underprivileged” to mean 
“the sick, women and children, aged and disabled,” so 
that instead of mentioning all the beneficiaries, we 
would only use the word UNDERPRIVILEGED. I 
would like to emphasize SELF-RELIANCE rather than 
mere delivery of social services. 

And so, I would appeal to the Commissioner to in- 
clude the concept of self-reliance because as we know, 
we are very rich in resources such as herbal medicines. 
I think there is a comprehensive documentation of 
herbal medicines and local indigenous foods and I would 
like to emphasize their utilization. 

So, if the Committee would not accept, I would like 
to throw this to the body. 

SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair suspends the session for 
two minutes to afford Commissioner Rosario Braid time 
to confer with the members of the Committee on the 
word SELF-RELIANCE.” 

It was 10:32 a.m. 


MS. ROSARIO BRAID. After the word “UNDER- 
PRIVILEGED,” Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Commissioner proposes to 
eliminate the rest? 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Yes, Madam President, but 
to insert instead the phrase “AND ENCOURAGE SELF- 
RELIANCE THROUGH USE OF INDIGENOUS 
HEALTH RESOURCES.” 

THE PRESIDENT. Is this accepted by the Commit- 
tee? 

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, Commissioner Bacani is 
recognized. 

BISHOP BACANI. May I ask that if we should vote 
on this, we should vote first on the deletion o e 
words that the Commissioner proposes to delete. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is that acceptable to the 
tee that we vote first on the proposed deletion o ^ e 
words “the sick, women and children and disable on 
Section 13? 

MR. BENGZON. Yes, we will vote first on tha^ 
motion to delete before we can insert the propos 
amendment. 

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, I just like to 
clarify the enumeration. 


RESUMPTION OF SESSION 
At 10.36 a.m., the session was resumed. 


THE PRESIDENT. The session was resumed. 

The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, may I ask that Com- 
missioner Rosario Braid be recognized. 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid is 
recognized to restate her proposed amendment. Is it an 
entire substitution or just an insertion of certain words? 


braid. It will just be inse 
nhrasM nf ^ ^^uik I will go along and use i 

Sk wnm ^"""""'^lioner Quesada but eliminate 
sick women and children, aged and disabled” a 

would belong to the underprivileged, and thei 

the phrase AND ENCOURAGE SELF-RELL 
THROUGH USE OF INDIGENOUS HEALTF 
SOURCES.” 


THE PRESIDENT. Yes, please proceed. 

MS. QUESADA. I would like to clarify ^ 

enumerated the underprivileged — “the sick, women a 
children, aged and disabled.” These are the groups we 
consider as the special groups with special health pr 
lems that have to be addressed to by the healt care 
system - the sick, particularly because if they 
addressed to, then they die; the women and children 
because of the nature of women, especially their mater- 
nal functions, their needs; and the children will have to 
be addressed too. The aged and the disabled are just as 
much disadvantaged because we do not have the special 
services and attention given to these special groups. In 
the health system, we already recognized these groups as 
those that would have special needs and singled them 
out to provide the basis for future legislations. 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid is 

recognized. 


THE PRESIDENT. Where shall this be inserted after 
the word “disabled”? 


MS. ROSARIO BRAID. I have no objection about 
mentioning all these beneficiaries, but in the spirit of 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


125 


brevity and in order that it could accommodate the 
phrase “PROMOTE SELF-RELIANCE THROUGH 
INDIGENOUS RESOURCES,” I thought the phrase 
could be deleted. 

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, it is not just a 
matter of giving in and accepting one concept or ano- 
ther. As I explained earlier, I took a lot of time explain- 
ing the intention of this provision so that we will not 
single out some of the concepts that are already in- 
herent in such an approach, otherwise we will miss out 
some of the other components, like when we talk of 
“self-reliance” and “indigenous.” These are parts of the 
comprehensive approach to the health development that 
we are addressing ourselves to. 

MR. BENGZON. Can we vote now. Madam Pres- 
ident? 

MR. PADILLA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Padilla is recog- 
nized. 

MR. PADILLA. May I make a suggestion that the last 
two lines of Section 13 be simplified to read: “the needs 
of the UNDERPRIVILEGED SICK” and eliminate all 
the rest and then add the proposed amendment of Com- 
missioner Rosario Braid. In other words, we just say 
“the UNDERPRIVILEGED SICK,” instead of the 
“UNDERPRIVILEGED, the sick, women and chil- 
dren ...” 

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, I would like to 
respond to the suggestion or the proposal of Com- 
missioner Padilla to use just the term “underprivileged.” 
The reason why we put a comma (,) is that we did not 
want to give the impression that we are just interested 
in the people who are sick. Health care is also provided 
those people who are well, and we would like to provide 
a comprehensive health program that will address itself 
to the healthy population so that they will not get sick. 
By saying the “underprivileged sick,” we are really refer- 
ring only to the sick. So, we placed a comma (,) because 
we talk then about the people who need special protec- 
tion, special health promotion — the preventive aspects 
of the health care program. 


VOTING 

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair believes that this has 
been sufficiently discussed. 

Those who are in favor of deleting the phrase “the 
sick, women and children, aged and disabled” from 
Section 13, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised 
their hand.) 

Those who are against, please raise their hand. (Sever- 
al Members raised their hand.) 


The results show 3 votes in favor and 16 against; the 
amendment is lost. 

The next amendment of Commissioner Rosario Braid 
is to add after the word “UNDERPRIVILEGED” the 
phrase “AND ENCOURAGE SELF-RELIANCE 
THROUGH THE USE OF INDIGENOUS HEALTH 
RESOURCES.” This has not been accepted by the 
Committee as explained by Commissioner Quesada. 

Those in favor of the second amendment of Com- 
missioner Rosario Braid, please raise their hand. (Few 
Members raised their hand.) 

Those who are against, please raise their hand. (Sever- 
al Members raised their hand.) 

The results show 14 votes in favor and 15 against; the 
amendment is lost. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Com- 
missioner Davide be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide, is this still 
on the same Section 13? 

MR. DAVIDE. The same section. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed. 

MR. DAVIDE. On the first line, insert after 
“HEALTH” the words OF ALL THE PEOPLE, and 
then delete the words “right to,” so that the first line 
will read: “The State shall protect and promote the 
health OF ALL THE PEOPLE. 

MS. QUESADA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Quesada is recog- 
nized. 

MS. QUESADA. We find that the word “right” 
should be expressly stated in this particular provision. 

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President, I have read the 
report of the Committee on Preamble, National Terri- 
tory and Declaration of Principles. The same sentence 
relating to health is found in the Declaration of Princi- 
ples. So, to be consistent with the Declaration of 
Principles, I think the matter of the right to health is 
already included when we say that the State shall 
protect and promote the health of all the people. It is 
conceded that that is a right, but it will emphasize the 
fact that this obligation is to all the people. 

MS. QUESADA. Yes. But still we would like to retain 
the word right ’ because this has a special meaning now 
to the direction of the provision of health care. We 
would like this expressed because there are many viola- 


126 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


tions of this human right. One might be a patient one 
day and discover that providers of services do not 
recognize his right to health care and may not provide 
him the tender loving care that he deserves because they 
do not understand fully and appreciate that this is 
already a right that has been enshrined in the Constitu- 
tion. 


MR. DAVIDE. Madam President, I will agree to the 
nondeletion of “right to” but I reserve my right to 
amend the corresponding provision in the Article on 
Declaration of Principles and State Policies. 

MS. QUESADA. Yes, we would welcome that. 

MR. DAVIDE. But I insist on the inclusion after the 
word “HEALTH” of the phrase OF ALL THE PEOPLE. 

MS. QUESADA. We accept. 

THE PRESIDENT. So, what is the decision of Com- 
missioner Davide? 


“HE amendment is only to add aftei 

HEALTH the words OF ALL THE PEOPLE. 

MS. QUESADA. On second thought. Madam Pres 
ident, would that not contribute to more verbiage be 

^ mention here of making all th( 
services available to all citizens? 

President, I will have a subse 

sav here is, if we onb 

y right to health, whose right is it? 

QUESADA. Is it not understood that when w( 
citLns?”^ health, we refer to the right of al 


MR. DAVIDE. I suggested OF ALL THE PEOPLE 
ause in the succeeding sentence, only “to all citi- 
zens” IS mentioned. 

MR. BENGZON. Primarily, to every citizen here in 
IS country, to the Filipinos and, of course, to every- 

o y, regardless of race, creed or whatever. That is 
already understood. 


MR. DAVIDE. So, I will not insist on the amendment 
on the first line but instead on placing the words PEO- 
PLE in lieu of “citizens” on the third from the last line. 

MS. QUESADA. We accept. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this pro- 
posed amendment of Commissioner Davide which has 
been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The Chair 
hears none; the amendment is approved. 

MR. DAVIDE. On the same line where the substitu- 
tion is made, I seek for the deletion of the words “with 
priority for the needs of,” and in lieu thereof, we say, 
ESPECIALLY TO. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is this acceptable? 

MS. QUESADA. Yes, Madam President, we accept. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this pro- 
posed amendment which has been accepted by le 
Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amen 
ment is approved. 

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you. Madam President. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Com- 
missioner Rodrigo be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog- 
nized. 

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, I sugpst a very 
simple amendment on line 3 after the word “shall, 

this is to place a comma (,) after “shall” and insert 
LAW then a comma (,). The amendment now rea s. 
“shall BY LAW, make essential goods ...” 

MS. QUESADA. I understand that there is a pro 
posal that would probably respond to this particu ar 
concern of inserting the words BY LAW by Com- 
missioner Ople. I' think the proposal is really to prevent 
the possibility of raising hopes. Would the Commissioner 
be amenable to the proposition of Commissioner Ople. 

MR. RODRIGO. I want to hear it. 


is silent- h t point is, in the first sentence 

7pns ” <5 second sentence it is “to all c 

countrv The classify certain persons in 

second sentence relates only to all citize 

Commissioner want 
amend the second sentence where the use of “all c 
zens could be changed to “ALL THE PEOPLE”? 

MR. DAVIDE. Gladly. 

\ 

MS. QUESADA. We accept. 


MR. OPLE. Madam President, would Commissioner 
Rodrigo at this point consider accepting an amendment 
to his amendment so that instead of “BY LAW,” the 
word ENDEAVOR TO is substituted for it. This is 
actually indicated in a proposed amendment that I had 
submitted earlier to the Committee, and the reason for 
saying ENDEAVOR TO is precisely to put the expecta- 
tions and hopes of the people who will read this provi- 
sion at a more realizable level and which also means that 
we eliminate the expectation that the government itself 
will provide all of these goods and services. The health 
development program will endeavor to make all of these 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


127 


goods and services available at affordable cost. With that 
change it becomes imminently implementable at once, 
without having to project to a long-run future when one 
has to wait for vast resources to be available to finance a 
national health insurance program of the kind which 
England, for example, is now reconsidering because of 
the unaffordable costs. 

MR. RODRIGO. The meaning of “BY LAW” is not 
exactly the same as the meaning of the words “EN- 
DEAVOR TO,” but between provincemates, I yield to 
Commissioner Ople. 

MR. OPLE. Thank you. 

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, we accept the pro- 
posed amendment to insert “ENDEAVOR TO” after 
“SHALL” on the third line. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this 
proposed amendment which has been accepted by the 
Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amend- 
ment's approved. 

MR. OPLE. I have just one more amendment. Madam 
President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed. 

MR. OPLE. On the same section, I suggest that we 
end the sentence at “affordable cost” which is on the 
third line from the bottom of the official text, and then 
follow it up with: “THERE SHALL BE PRIORITY 
for the needs of the underprivileged, the 
sick women and children, THE aged and THE disabled.” 
The' reason for suggesting this is that the priority for the 
needs of the underprivileged ought not to be read in the 
context alone of essential goods and services, but this 
should be a priority of the entire integrated and compre- 
hensive approach. I think that makes the meaning clear, 
there shall be special programs in the future to imple- 
ment this priority for the needs of the underprivileged, 
the sick, women and children and, may I say, let us use 
the standard term “THE aged and THE disabled,” in- 
stead of merely “aged and disabled.” 

When we cut that sentence and establish a new 
priority for the needs of the underprivileged, it is a 
mandate of Congress to devise a special program under 
an integrated and comprehensive health care system for 
these underprivileged classes. 

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, we have just 
approved the proposed amendment of Commissioner 
Davide cutting down on the words “with priority for.” 
But this means a restyling. Would the honorable Com- 
missioner be amenable to giving this to the Committee 
on Style to decide on whether it should be a separate 
sentence? 


MR. OPLE. This is not solely a question of style 
because with this we are limiting the priority for the 
underprivileged when we cut the sentence and reserve 
wholly a new sentence for the underprivileged. Then we 
are, as I said earlier, making their priority coextensive, 
not only with goods and services but with the entire 
range of the integrated and comprehensive health care. 

THE PRESIDENT. What is the proposal of Com- 
missioner Ople? 

MR. OPLE. As I said, end the sentence with the 
words “affordable cost,” then add this new sentence 
instead: “THERE SHALL BE PRIORITY FOR THE 
NEEDS OF THE UNDERPRIVILEGED, the sick, 
women and children, THE aged and THE disabled.” 

MS. QUESADA. The Committee accepts. 

MR. OPLE. Thank you. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this 
latest amendment which has been accepted by the 
Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amend- 
ment is approved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I should like to 
present an amendment. There is a health program which, 

I believe, is very important and might be emphasized in 
Section 13, and this is on preventive medicine. It is 
important because it could save the country millions or 
hundreds of millions of pesos; it could save millions of 
lives from sickness and death. I think it should be em- 
phasized, although it is contained in the explanation, 
that, as Commissioner Quesada has stated, many of the 
people who will read the Constitution would not have 
the time to research and find out the explanation of 
these provisions. 

May I just mention one example. Madam President. I 
have a friend who is one of the top doctors of the Lung 
Center of Imelda Marcos, and I asked him, “How much 
money was spent to build this Lung Center?” And he 
said, “A hundred and fifty million pesos.” And I said, 
“Is that money well-spent to cure lung diseases? ” He 
said, “It is foolish money because instead of building a 
hospital or stressing on cure, this money should have 
gone into inoculations of millions of Filipino infants, 
and saving the lives of these infants through the simple 
process of inoculating them with BCG” - I think Com- 
missioner Quesada knows about this. According to the 
statistics, the no. 3 killer in the country is tuberculosis. 
In other countries, tuberculosis has been wiped out 
because of inoculation. Were the Pi 50 million, which 
was spent for curative program, spent for preventive 
medicine, we could have saved untold sufferings, many 
lives and millions of pesos for the government. 

Madam President, another point more important than 
the phrase affordable to the people” is whether this 
program is affordable to the government. In other 


128 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


words, the question is whether the government has the 
money to be able to render the services and thereby save 
millions or hundreds of millions of pesos by emphasiz- 
ing preventive medicine. So, I wonder if it would be 
good to stress this by inserting the words STRESSING 
ON PREVENTIVE MEDICINE after the phrase 
“essential goods, HEALTH and OTHER social ser- 
vices.” 

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, I really appreciate 
the interest of Commissioner Rama on the preventive 
aspect of health care. As a matter of fact, I am a pro- 
ponent of preventive health care. But as I said earlier, 
and as I explained to Commissioner Rosario Braid, if we 
single out this element of a comprehensive approach to 
health development, it might bog us down in the details 
of what could very well be part of the thrust not even 
of legislation, but of health programs. But I think it is 
very useful that we put on record that the services 
should provide or should stress on health promotion, 
which I included as part of the explanatory note of 
comprehensive approach. Section 13 (4) states 

that health services provided should include health 
promotion (with emphasis on health education), disease 
prevention or specific protection, such as immunization. 
We did not single out TB because that is only one of 
the causes of mortality and morbidity. 

MR. RAMA. And so, it is the sense of the Committee 
that there must be special emphasis on preventive 
medicine. 

MS. QUESADA. Yes, we would like to put on 
record that the future health delivery system should 

respond to the mandate for more prevention rather than 
for cure. 

Yes, I think that is a good suggestion, so 
I will withdraw the amendment. 


BISHOP BACANI. Would the Commissioner not 
deem it advisable to say instead “HEALTH SERVICES 
and OTHER social services available”? 

MS. QUESADA. The understanding is that health is 
part of the social services. There will be the social ser- 
vice of education, housing, employment, security. So, 
we just singled out “HEALTH” because we cannot have 
the state of health unless we provide health services, but 
which is not alone responsible for man or people attain- 
ing a state of health. 

BISHOP BACANI. Yes, but what I mean is, the 
interest of clarity might make it necessary that we say 
instead “HEALTH SERVICES and OTHER social ser- 
vices available.” I have read this part twice, three times, 
and it was only later on that I realized the need to make 
this clear. So, may I suggest that we add the word SER- 
VICES after “HEALTH.” 

MS. QUESADA. I accept the amendment. Madam 
President. 

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, I submit that 
amendment which the Committee has accepted. 

MR. SUAREZ. Where are we going to insert the 
amendment? 

BISHOP BACANI. Insert the word SERVICES ^ 
between the words “HEALTH” and “and OTHER 
which appear on the fourth line. 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. 

THE PRESIDENT. In other words, the phrase will 
now read “health SERVICES and OTHER socia ser 
vices available.” 

BISHOP BACANI. Yes, Madam President. 


MS. QUESADA. Thank you. 


MR. RAMA. Madam President, may I ask that Com- 
missioner Bacani be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog- 
nized. 


BISHOP BACANI. Perhaps the first amendm( 

^ ^ot have to be done at 

if I am clarified on certain points. 

h APPROACH ' 

. £¥y,^ir^^^ENT WHICH shall make essen 

goods, HEALTH and OTHER social services availabl 
does the word “HEALTH” qualify the word “services 

MS. QUESADA. Yes. 


MR. SUAREZ. The Committee accepts. Madam 
President. 

BISHOP BACANI. So, the Committee has accepted, 
Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this pro- 
posed amendment of Commissioner Bacani which has 
been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The Chair 
hears none; the amendment is approved. 

MR. PADILLA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Padilla is recog- 
nized . 

MR. PADILLA. On that same line 4, I was thinking 
to change the words “goods, health services and other 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


129 


social services” to ESSENTIAL MEDICINES, HEALTH 
DRUGS AND HOSPITAL SERVICES. Just a sugges- 
tion because when I read “goods,” I had the impression 
that it includes not only vegetables, fish, meat; these 
are all goods, but I think what we should make available 
are medicines and health drugs. 

The term “and OTHER social services” is also very 
vague. What we need are hospital services because when 
a person is seriously ill and he cannot be an outpatient, 
he has to have some hospital bed and hospital care. 

MS. QUESADA. Yes. This particular statement of 
goods does not just refer to health goods, like medicines 
or the things that we find in the hospitals. This relates 
now to the understanding that the state of health can- 
not be achieved if there are other goods which are 
not made available and affordable. That is why the 
comprehensive and integrated nature of this approach to 
health development takes cognizance of the need to 
interrelate with other social services. Thus, we did not 
single out just food or drugs but it would mean also the 
other essential goods which man needs so that he can 
attain good health. 

MR. PADILLA. Yes. But when one is not healthy — 
when he has a headache, heartache, other aches - what 
he needs is medicine. Of course, to have good physical 
and mental health one needs more than medicine, like 
good food and substantial proteins. But with regard to 
health care it is the people who go to the hospital or to 
a doctor, but the common complaint is that the medi- 
cines they prescribe are very costly. The immediate need 
of the patient is to be able to buy the medicines or the 
health drugs and, perhaps, a hospital accommodation. 

However, I will not insist if the Committee does not 
look with favor on this suggestion. 

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, health care is 
really much broader than just the state of illness. For 
example, when we talk about essential goods, it would 
refer to goods such as the building of bridges so that 
people will not get sick of schistosomiasis; it will be 
providing the other conditions that will enable people to 
maintain health. So, that is why it is the total health 
development, including prevention, the putting up of 
toilets, of water facilities, mosquito nets, and all those 
that would prevent diseases. It is really going into the 
details of health development. 

I suppose that with this understanding of the holism, 
the broadness of this concept of health, we realize that 
it is not just being sick or utilizing goods offered in a 
hospital, but also the goods which are offered in the 
communities that are considered. 

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, if Commissioner 
Padilla is no longer insisting, may I pursue a second 
amendment? 

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed. 


BISHOP BACANI. I do not know whether this is a 
matter of style, but there is some reason for the change 
I wish to propose. After saying “There shall be priority 
for the needs of the underprivileged, the sick, women 
and children, the aged and the disabled,” may I suggest 
that the order should be “There shall be priority for the 
needs of the underprivileged, the sick, THE AGED AND 
THE DISABLED, WOMEN AND CHILDREN.” May I 
explain the reason. All of the previous ones, except the 
last two, necessarily suffer from some disadvantage or 
infirmity; while the women and children, though they 
may have special needs, do not necessarily suffer from 
any infirmity or disadvantage. 

MS. QUESADA. Yes, Madam President, we accept. 

BISHOP BACANI. Thank you. 

THE PRESIDENT. May we ask Commissioner Bacani 
to read his amendment again. 

BISHOP BACANI. “There shall be priority for the 
needs of the underprivileged, the sick, THE AGED AND 
THE DISABLED, WOMEN AND CHILDREN.” 

THE PRESIDENT. Do we eliminate “women and 
children”? 

BISHOP BACANI. We put them at the last. Madam 
President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? 

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed. Commissioner 
Rodrigo. 

MR. RODRIGO. I have a special predilection for 
women but it is precisely because of this that I find a 
jarring note in this enumeration. Why should we place 
women, in general, in the same class with the sick, the 
aged, the disabled, the underprivileged? Do women, in 
general, include the women who are healthy, wealthy 
and wise? 

I thought I could remedy this in the Committee on 
Style but I do not think I can because it is not just a 
matter of form. In the case of men, only the men who 
are sick come under this — only those who are disabled 
and underprivileged. But then we have placed women, 
in general, in the same class with the sick, the aged and 
the disabled. 

MS. AQUINO. Madam President, it may sound jarring 
and a bit inelegant but apparently women have the ex- 
clusive monopoly of maternal functions and for that 
reason, they need special health care services and atten- 
tion. 


130 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


MR. MONSOD. Madam President. SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

MR. RODRIGO. If the women do not see anything ™E PRESIDENT. The session is suspended, 
jarring in it, I do not mean to be more popish than the It was 11:15 a.m. 

Pope. 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog- 
nized. 

MR. MONSOD. I was just wondering if we can read 
this in connection with the Section on Women because I 
guess we are applying ourselves to working conditions 
and to working women. Is it possible to integrate this? 

THE PRESIDENT. What does Commissioner Quesada 
say? 

MS. QUESADA. The Section on Women refers to 
working women, but we are referring to women all over 
including those who may not be working in industries 
but whose health care needs have to be addressed to 

because of their biological reproductive maternal 
functions. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President. 


RESUMPTION OF SESSION 

At 11:26 a.m., the session was resumed. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed. 

Before we suspended the session, we were discussing 
the proposed amendment of Commissioner Bacani to 
transpose “women and children.” Am I correct? Was the 
amendment to place “women and children” at the end 
of the sentence after “disabled” accepted by the 
Committee? 

MR. RAMA. Yes, Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this pro- 
posed amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the 
amendment is approved. 

Is there any other pending amendment? 


PRESIDENT. Commissioner Sarmiento is recog 

nized. 

Si^MIEOTO. This is just a clarification ad 
dressed to Commissioner Quesada. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is it also about women? 

MR. SARMIENTO. Yes, Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed. 

MR. SARMIENTO. The use of the word “women 
IS very road. It would cover working women, wome 
w 0 ^e rich, who are wealthy, who are poor. Since w 
ave t e suggestion from Commissioner Monsod to lin 
provision on working women, can we sa 
WUKKING women and children”? 


MR. RAMA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. May I ask that Commissioner Monsod 
be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog- 
nized. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may we read our 
proposed last sentence per the Ople amendment: “There 
shall be priority for the needs of the underprivileged 
sick, the ELDERLY AND DISABLED, AND WOMEN 
AND CHILDREN.” In other words, we are now de- 
fining sick women and children, elderly and disabled, 
who are entitled to special or priority attention because 
of the word “underprivileged.” 


MS. QUESADA. No. We are also referring to women 
w o stay at home, those who are the child bearers, or 
the women who are not found in industry. 


MR. RAMA. Madam President, there are no more 
proponents of any amendmentdo Section 13, so I move 
that we take a vote on the whole section. 


intent in using the 
women is to cover all women? 


THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Quesada please 
read now the whole Section 1 3 as amended. 


MS. QUESADA. Yes. 

MR. RAMA. Madam Presiripnt 
proponents of amendments to Section 1?. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may we have- 
one mmute to try to reconcile the different ideas t 
have been propounded? 


MS. QUESADA. “The State shall protect and pro- 
mote the right to HEALTH. To this end, IT SHALL 
adopt an integrated and comprehensive APPROACH 
to health DEVELOPMENT WHICH shall endeavor to 
make essential goods, HEALTH services and OTHER 
social services available to all THE PEOPLE at afford- 
able cost. There shall be priority for the needs of the 
underprivileged sick, the ELDERLY AND DISABLED, 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


131 


AND WOMEN AND CHILDREN. THE STATE SHALL 
ENDEAVOR TO PROVIDE FREE MEDICAL CARE 
TO THE PAUPERS.” 

MR. FOZ. Madam President, may I just ask one 
question? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Foz is recognized. 

MR. FOZ. Would it not be better if we put the term 
“women and children” ahead of all the others? 

THE PRESIDENT. There is a suggestion that we put 
“women and children” ahead. Is this acceptable to the 
Committee? 

MS. QUESADA. No, Madam President, we will retain 
the Bacani proposal which places “women and children” 
at the end of the enumeration. 

VOTING 

THE PRESIDENT. Those who are m favor of Section 
13 as read by the Chairman of the Committee, please 
raise their hand. (All Members raised their hand.) 

Those who are against, please raise their hand. (No 
Member raised his hand.) 

The results show 38 votes in favor and none against; 
Section 13, as amended, is approved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Com- 
missioner Davide be recognized to present an amend- 
ment to Section 14. 

the PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President, this is a very simple 
amendment. I suggest to insert the words AND CON- 
TROL between the words “monitoring” and “system.” 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, we are consolidat- 
ing Sections 14 and 15; perhaps, if we state our con- 
solidation, then the Gentleman can introduce his 
amendments. 

MR. DAVIDE. I am willing to defer consideration. 

THE PRESIDENT. Let us hear from the Committee. 

MS. QUESADA. The reformulation would be as 
follows: “THE STATE SHALL MAINTAIN AN EF- 
FECTIVE FOOD AND DRUG MONITORING SYS- 
TEM, APPROPRIATE HEALTH MANPOWER DE- 
VELOPMENT AND RESEARCH, AND A SPECIAL 
BODY FOR DISABLED PERSONS TO ENABLE 
THEIR INTEGRATION TO THE MAINSTREAM OF 
SOCIETY.” So we have combined Sections 14 and 15. 


THE PRESIDENT. Is that clear to the Commissioners? 

MR. DAVIDE. May we have copies of the reformula- 
tion? 

THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Quesada please 
repeat slowly. 

MS. QUESADA. It still retains most of Section 14: 

“THE STATE SHALL MAINTAIN AN EFFECTIVE 
FOOD AND DRUG MONITORING SYSTEM, APPRO- 
PRIATE HEALTH MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT 
AND RESEARCH, AND A SPECIAL BODY FOR DIS- 
ABLED PERSONS TO ENABLE THEIR INTEGRA- 
TION TO THE MAINSTREAM OF SOCIETY.” 

MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de los Reyes is 
recognized. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. May I know the purpose of 
lumping together the provision on a special body for 
disabled persons and the provision on a food and drug 
monitoring system for which reason we deleted the im- 
portant words “for the rehabilitation, self-development 
and self-reliance of the disabled towards their total in- 
tegration to the mainstream of society”? I find that 
if we lump together this provision on disabled persons 
with the provision on food and drug monitoring system, 
we dilute , the special emphasis on the concern of the 
State for disabled persons and, therefore, while I would 
not mind lumping the two sections together, I would 
request that the provision on disabled persons be con- 
sidered another paragraph. 

SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, may we request 
a suspension of the session. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended. 

It was 11:34 a.m. 

RESUMPTION OF SESSION 

At 11:41 a.m., the session was resumed. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed. 

Commissioner Quesada is recognized. 

MS. QUESADA. Due to the strong reactions to the 
new formulations, the Committee has decided to retain 
the original sections. Section 14, however, will contain 
some insertions of new ideas, and this would now read: 
“SECTION 14. The State shall maintain an effective 
food and drug monitoring AND CONTROL system and 
UNDERTAKE appropriate health manpower develop- 


132 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1 986 


ment and research RESPONSIVE TO THE COUN- 
TRY’S HEALTH NEEDS AND PROBLEMS.” 

This idea was introduced by Commissioners Regalado 
and Davide. 

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DAVIDE. So, the first amendment, the insertion 
of the words AND CONTROL after “monitoring,” is 
accepted by the Committee. 

MS. QUESADA. Yes. 


MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, if we look at 
the Explanatory Note prepared by Commissioner Quesa- 
da, the use of the words “monitoring system” would 
cover control and regulation. The sentence would read: 
“SUCH MONITORING SYSTEM WOULD ADDRESS 
ITSELF TO THE ADOPTION OF A NATIONAL ES- 
SENTIAL DRUG LIST, THE USE OF GENERIC 
NAMES, THE STRENGTHENING OF THE NATION- 
AL FOOD AND DRUG REGULATORY MECHAN- 
ISMS . . .” So I think the words “regulation” and 
“control” are contemplated by the use of the words 
“food and drug monitoring system.” 

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President, may I react? 

THE PRESIDENT. The Gentleman may proceed. 


THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this 
particular amendment? 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, will the proponent 
entertain an amendment to his amendment? 

MR. DAVIDE. May we hear the amendment? 

MR. OPLE. In Ueu of “AND CONTROL,” would 
Commissioner Davide consider REGULATORY? 

• davide. No, Madam President; CONTROL 
^ better because it will relate precisely to drug. 

bo. It IS not just regulation of drug but control also of 
drug. 


MR. OPLE. I was hoping to put this in the following 
context. For example, regulation would also include a 
rnandate to appropriate government authorities to con- 
sider, for example, the point raised earlier by Com- 
missioner Rosario Braid about the use of indigenous 
resources, say, the preference for generic drugs instead 
of these very costly foreign labels; and if we have to 
meet the standard of affordable cost, it may be necessa- 
ry for the regulatory function of the government to take 
vigorous steps, to overcome the resistance of the foreign 
drug companies to the use of generic drugs which pro- 
bably cuts down the cost immediately by one-half, if 
not more. And so, regulation, monitoring and regulatory 
system can actually have this context, instead of the 

controlling abuses, including 

mislabelling, I suppose. 


MR. DAVIDE. Can we combine the two concents 

“monitoring,- then add , 
words REGULATION OR CONTROL”? 


MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President 
ment on regulation and control? ’ 


may I com- 


THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed, 
Sarmiento. 


Commissioner 


MR. DAVIDE. This is merely an explanation but 
it is not embodied in the text of the proposal. Inter- 
pretations may be made later to instances merely of 
monitoring but monitoring does not necessarily include 
regulation or control. So, the language must be made 
stronger to include regulation or control, especially that 
we are talking, among others, of food, and especially 
drugs. I really feel the necessity not only of the inser- 
tion of CONTROL but also of including “REGULA- 
TION” as explained by Commissioner Ople which I am 
willing to accept. 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, I am willing to accept 
the Davide amendment to my amendment provided it is 
also understood that “REGULATION” and “CON- 
TROL” include the power of the government to 
regulate cartelized pricing of drugs especially by foreign 
manufacturers. 

MR. DAVIDE. That would be included. 

MR. OPLE. I understand they often resort to this, 
which will make it impossible for the promise made in 
this section of the Article on Social Justice to make 
available goods and services at affordable cost. If the 
foreign drug manufacturers which dominate the drug 
industry in the Philippines are allowed to resort to car- 
telized pricing, that is to say fixing the prices at higher 
levels behind the back of the government. . . 

THE PRESIDENT. Does the Committee accept the 
inclusion of the words “CONTROL AND REGULA- 
TION”? 

MS. QUESADA. I understand. Madam President, that 
the word “CONTROL” would now include the ideas of 
regulation as proposed by Commissioner Ople, so we 
will just use the word “CONTROL” to include regula- 
tory mechanisms. 

MR. DAVIDE. It will necessarily include regulation. 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


133 


MR. OPLE. Regulation will necessarily include con- 
trol, Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Ople insist on 
his proposal to include the word “REGULATION” 
aside from “CONTROL”? 

MR. OPLE. The Davide amendment contemplated 
the use of “REGULATION” and “CONTROL,” Madam 
President. 


tables would not be unhealthful because in vegetable- 
growing, chemicals which may be disastrous to health 
are already applied. 

MR. SUAREZ. So, even in situations hke that, the 
Gentleman contemplates that tlie government could 
exercise monitoring and control? 

MR. DAVIDE. Certainly, Madam President, because 
the idea is the promotion of total health. 


THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say? 
The Committee only says “monitoring AND CON- 
TROL.” 

MS. QUESADA. Before we make a comment on that. 
Commissioner Villacorta would like to clarify some 
possible consequence of this control. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villacorta is recog- 
nized. 

MR. VILLACORTA. Madam President, while we 
understand the contemplation of this phrase, “food and 
drug monitoring AND CONTROL,” we would like to 
put on record that this does not at all refer to the con- 
trol of food distribution, intake or production. 

MR. DAVIDE. That is also correct. Control here is to 
determine whether this food is nutritious enough or 
adequate or substandard. So, the government must con- 
trol not the manufacturing, although there should be 
some regulations in the manufacturing to see to it that it 
wUl contribute to the promotion of health. 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, it seems that the intent 
of the Committee is better served by the more precise 
term “REGULATION” which is usually the object of 
monitoring. Monitoring is usually exercised on behalf of 
a regulatory power of a competent authority of the 
government; control can be susceptible to misinterpreta- 
tion; while regulation is completely immune from being 

misinterpreted. 

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President. 


MR. SUAREZ. I thought the Gentleman was prin- 
cipally referring to processed food? 

MR. DAVIDE. No. 

MR. OPLE. I support the wider interpretation given 
by Commissioner Davide. He is correct. Does the 
Gentleman know that although American bases authori- 
ties are obligated by agreement or treaty to buy locally 
sourced vegetables especially from Baguio, almost in- 
evitably our vegetables are rejected at the gate of Clark 
Field and Subic because of the allegation that the DDT 
content is too high for their own health standards? 

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, we would like to 
propose this compromise so we can cut down on the 
words and still achieve the same meanings that both 
Commissioners Davide and Ople have presented, and 
that is to use the word REGULATORY. “The State 
shall maintain an effective food and drug REGULA- 
TORY system, to include the idea of monitoring, 
control and regulation. 

MR. DAVIDE. So, “monitoring” will be deleted? 

MR. OPLE. That is acceptable to me. Madam Pres- 
ident. 

MR. DAVIDE. It is accepted. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this 
proposed amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; 
the amendment is approved. 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recog- 
nized. 

MR. SUAREZ. Just one point of clarification from 
the Honorable Davide because the use of the word 
“food” may be misinterpreted in the future. Is the 
Gentleman referring to processed food? 

MR. DAVIDE. Among others. 

MR. SUAREZ. Not the raw food that we take like 
vegetables? 

MR. DAVIDE. The government may also impose 
certain rules and regulations to see to it that these vege- 


MR. OPLE. I have another amendment, if Com- 
missioner Davide has already used his turn. 


MR. DAVIDE. I have an amendment on the third 
line. My proposal is to delete the word ^‘COUNTRY’S” 
and after PROBLEMS,” insert the following' OF THE 
PEOPLE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COUN- 
TRY. 

THE PRESIDENT. How will it read then? 

MR. DAVIDE. It reads as follows: “RESPONSIVE 
TO THE HEALTH NEEDS AND PROBLEMS OF THE 
PEOPLE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COUN- 
TRY.” 


134 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


MR. MONSOD. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog- 
nized. 

MR. MONSOD. The idea of the Committee here is 
not to bring in the development of the country, only 
health needs and problems. That belongs to the section 
on the national economy. 

MR. DAVIDE. Not only that, Madam President. In 
the proposed Article on Declaration of Principles, the 
principal thrust of the development and promotion of 
the health of the people is for socioeconomic de- 
velopment. So, this is only to dovetail that particular 
proposal. 


from representatives of Mindanao that there are millions 
in Mindanao, in the countryside, who live and die with- 
out ever seeing a single doctor or a nurse. Although this 
is probably an extreme example in the case of Minda- 
nao, the fact that many Filipinos Live and die without 
seeing a doctor reflects a nationwide reality outside of 
the cities. 

Therefore, I strongly urge the Committee, in the 
interest of social justice, for those deprived of medical 
care in the rural areas, to give a countervailing bias now 
in this section so that the redressing of this imbalance in 
health care for the rural areas, for the rural poor in par- 
ticular, will be part of the mandate of the health section 
of the Article on Social Justice. 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Madam President. 


MR. MONSOD. No, we do not have to repeat in each 
and every section social, political, economic and health 
development and everything else because the whole 
Constitution must be read in that context. 

MR. DAVIDE. Then I will not insist on that par- 
ticular proposal. 

MR. OPLE. Madam President. 


MS. QUESADA. Madam President. 

MR. BENGZON. May the Committee react first to 
that amendment before any proposals are presented. 
Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Quesada is recog- 
nized. 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized. 

MR. OPLE. May I propose an amendment at the very 
end of the consolidated section. 

THE PRESIDENT. It is not being consolidated any- 


MS. QUESADA. No, it has been separated. 

MR. OPLE. It has been separated again. Anyway, on 
ection 14, after the very end of the present sentence 
and research on health care problems,” please add the 
followmg: AND CORRECT THE HISTORIC IM- 

delivery of HEALTH CARE 
TO THE RURAL AREAS. 

May I explain briefly, Madam President. 


THE PRESIDENT. The Gentleman may proceed. 

MR. OPLE. Thank you. 

interpellations on this sub 

of th^ ^ '^onld reflect the admis 

1 ^ k rS'® Commissioner Quesada 

tJip- hpalVh rarp disparity now existin 

the health care services avaUable to the urban areas 

She admi 

that although we have a glut of nursing graduates 
abroad, there are no takers among nurses and doc 
for vacancies existmg in the rural health units of 
country. The reason is that the countryside is too v 
tractive for doctors and nurses. That is why we 


MS. QUESADA. Madam President, we have taken 
into consideration the rationale behind the proposed 
amendment of Commissioner Ople. We have actually 
taken his proposed term - “TO UNDERTAKE APPRO- 
PRIATE HEALTH MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT” - 
which would now encompass the need of redirecting the 
health manpower development so that we can address 
these resources to the needs of the country particularly 
the rural poor. But we do not want to specify manpower 
development as it would be only one development. 

MR. OPLE. It is not only manpower development but 
the whole range of services under the integrated and 
comprehensive health care and development program. 

MS. QUESADA. Yes, the concept of manpower de- 
velopment being from production to utilization and 
management, which includes the deployment and 
distribution of the health manpower resource. 

So, we are really addressing this redirection in the 
manpower training and education to meet the needs of 
our people, particularly the rural poor. 

MR. BENGZON. We cannot accept the amendment. 

MR. OPLE. The Committee does admit that this is a 
very grave problem not only of health but also of social 
justice. If this is correct and it rises to that gravity, 
should it not deserve some explicit mention in this 
section? 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Madam President, may I be 
recognized? 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


135 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid is 
recognized. 

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Yes, I concur with Com- 
missioner Ople. This is why I have an amendment to his 
amendment and perhaps we could put it together. 
After “research,” add the phrase AND ENSURE THE 
EVEN REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF HEALTH 
PERSONNEL. I concur with Commissioner Ople 
because statistics would show that only 30 percent of 
the entire force of physicians are in the rural areas serv- 
ing 70 percent of the population. I mentioned earlier 
that although there are 92,000 rural health workers, 
there is an uneven distribution in the country. So, with 
this amendment, I strongly urge this concept of re- 
dressing the imbalances through coming up with an 
amendment, like that of Commissioner Ople and my 
amendment, in the spirit of a more even regional dis- 
tribution of health care services. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may the Commit- 
tee reply? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod may pro- 
ceed. 

MR. MONSOD. I think the minutes of committee 
meetings and the minutes of these discussions as well as 
the explanation of Commissioner Quesada very clearly 
say that the words in Section 13 already include the 
concept that the Gentleman is stating. We are willing to 
have these interpretations read into the Record in order 
that the interpretation is not lost. However, we regret 
that we cannot add these words because they are 
already subsumed and included in the total concept of 
the Committee. I believe Commissioner Ople is a 
member of the Committee and he will recall that when 
we were discussing this, he suggested that this was all 
being considered already and we feel that it is not 
necessary to add these words anymore. 

MR. OPLE. If the intent is very clearly and empha- 
tically recorded, I will go along with the Committee, 
Madam President. 

MR. MONSOD. Thank you. Madam President. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be 
recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Sarmiento is recog- 
nized. 

MR. SARMIENTO. My amendment. Madam Pres- 
ident, is a simple amendment. It is an amendment by 
addition on Section 14. After “shall,” add the words 


ESTABLISH AND so that it shall read: “The State shall 
ESTABLISH AND maintain an effective food and drug 
regulatory system.” 

This is a consequence of the amendment proposed by 
Commissioner Davide and adopted by the Committee. 

MS. QUESADA. We accept the amendment. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Thank you. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this pro- 
posed amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the 
amendment is approved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there are no more 
proponents of amendments. 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, there is indeed a pro- 
posed amendment which should immediately follow 
Section 14. With the indulgence of the Floor Leader, 
may I state this proposed amendment now, in asso- 
ciation with Commissioners Aquino, Sarmiento, Cal- 
deron, Tingson and Rodrigo. It merely says: SECTION 
15. THE CARE AND WELFARE OF THE ELDERLY 
SHALL ENJOY STATE SUPPORT AND PROTEC- 
TION. 

May I explain briefly. Madam President? 

The reason for this amendment is that throughout 
the Article on Social Justice and also the Article on 
Declaration of Principles, this Commission has already 
acknowledged the fundamental entitlement to the pro- 
tection of the State of various disadvantaged groups. 
These include, of course, workers and peasants, women 
at work, minors. That just about leaves out just one 
more very important and strategic segment of the work 
force that should be entitled to our protection. They are 
the ones that have withdrawn from the work force 
through retirement. There are eight million members of 
the Social Security System, many of whom are attain- 
ing the age of retirement. There are one million mem- 
bers of the GSIS, many of whom are also attaining the 
age of retirement. There is a nationwide clamor from all 
of these retirees for the government to set right the 
pension schemes for which they have contributed all of 
their working lives but out of which they now get a 
mere pittance. 

I was in San Miguel, Bulacan the other day and some 
of the government retirees spoke to me. They retired 
about 10 years ago. They said 10 years ago, this P200 
from the GSIS could still buy three sacks of rice. Today, 
they get the same amount and this can hardly buy 
a sack of rice. Of course, the retirees do not have 
champions unlike those still enrolled in the active labor 
force. Throughout the world, governments are now 
moved by the advancing social morality of the age. They 
are taking vigorous steps to redress the disadvantages for 
the elderly , those who will retire from the work force. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. 


136 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1 986 


THE PRESIDENT. Excuse me. May the Chair pro- 
pound one question, if I can be allowed to propound 
one question? 

MR. OPLE. Yes, Madam President. It is a great honor. 

THE PRESIDENT. Will the veterans be included 
because we have been receiving so many communica- 
tions, hundreds of them, asking for the protection also 
of the rights of veterans? 


tradition of the family taking care of the elderly. We 
recognize that the practice of the State taking care of 
the elderly is a western tradition. But while the State 
and government agencies may be able to take care of the 
elderly, the elderly will die not from lack of care but 
from a broken heart. I do not know that this provision 
shall relate to that provision in the Article on Family 
Rights. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President. 


MR. OPLE. The veterans are included to the extent 
that they are retirees of the government or of the 
private sector and, therefore, are enrolled in the SSS or 
in the GSIS. 


MR. OPLE. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de Castro is recog- 
nized. 


MR. TINGSON. Madam President. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tingson is recog- 
nized. 


MR. TINGSON. Madam President, may I add a little 
word in support of this amendment. 


THE PRESIDENT. The Gentleman may proceed. 


MR. TINGSON. Madam President, those of us who 
^ this Constitutional Commission 

ou e to say that we cannot avoid growing old, but 
we can avoid growing cold. We read in a very well- 
known publication all over the world, entitled Daily 
Tea , at growing old has some definite advantages. If 
0 gave us full use of our mental faculties, the sunset 
years provide a wonderful opportunity of coming to 
eims with our past. So, the elderly should be protected 
in e sense that they should be supported. The care and 
welfare of the elderly shall enjoy the support and pro- 
tection of the State because the elderly are not afraid of 
tomorrow. They have seen yesterday and they are in 
love with today. A famous poet aptly said: 

The vain regrets of yesterday had vanished through 
God s pardoning grace. The guilty fear has passed away and 
joy has come to take its place. 


hecau^e"thnQP^^^f ^ ^ Strongly support this amen 

“Cnme ^^^ting old WOUld 

say. Come, grow old with me; the best is yet to 1 


MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner 

nized. 


Bennagen is recog- 


MR. BENNAGEN. Thank you. Madam President. 

We have in the section on family rights a provision 
which says that the State shall encourage the Filipino 


MR. DE CASTRO. Thank you, Madam President. 

Mention has been made by the President on the 
voluminous letters we receive from war veterans and 
government retirees. Commissioner Nolledo and I have 
filed Resolution No. 497 for these war veterans and 
government retirees, and this had been referred to the 
Committee on Declaration of Principles. So, I would 
not present it at this time in the Article on Social 
Justice because it is appropriately referred to the 
Committee on Declaration of Principles. 

Thank you, Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. What is the Committee’s reaction 
to this Ople amendment? 

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, we do sympathize 
with the concern of the Commissioners but we would 
like to state that Section 13, indeed, takes into con- 
sideration such concern for the elderly when this special 
group has been singled out as one of the underprivileged 
to which the State should afford protection because it 
includes not only the right to health but also the other 
essential social services which this particular disad- 
vantaged or underprivileged group would be able to 
obtain. So, we feel that providing another special sec- 
tion would open the floodgates to other sections that 
would include special care for the aged, the sick and 
women. 

MR. OPLE. May I call for a vote, Madam President. 
And in this respect, may I amend our own amendment 
so that it will include the veterans. 

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DAVIDE. Before the amendment is put to a 
vote, I seek to introduce some amendments. 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


137 


Both proponents took into account only the elderly; 
we have forgotten the orphans and the abandoned chil- 
dren. So, I seek to amend the second line by inserting 
before “ELDERLY” the following: “ORPHANS, 

ABANDONED CHILDREN, WAR VETERANS AND 
THE ELDERLY.” 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog- 
nized. 

MR. MONSOD. Yesterday, Madam President, there 
was a discussion here on the section for minors, in 
which the phrase “ORPHANS AND ABANDONED 
CHILDREN” was to be included. We believe that 
both the suggestions of Commissioner Ople and Com- 
missioner Davide are amply covered in Section 13 
because that section talks about the underprivileged, the 
elderly, women and children, and it is in the context of 
a total approach to health care. 

Secondly, the other aspect of taking care of the 
elderly will be provided for in the section on family- 
rights as mentioned by Commissioner Bennagen. 

So, we believe that this is amply covered in this 
section on social justice and health services. 

The veterans would be included in the elderly as well 
because veterans are approaching old age. 

If the proponents insist on their amendments, then 
we are willing to call for a vote and ask for the judgment 
of the body on whether their inclusion would not be 

redundant. 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, may I reply briefly to 
the Committee before the amendment is voted upon? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized. 

MR. OPLE. I appreciate the intervention of other 
colleagues - Commissioners de Castro, Davide, Sar- 
miento, and above all. Monsod, on behalf of the Com- 
mittee - concerning this subject. However, I think they 
missed the jugular issue behind this proposed amend- 
ment. 

As I said in my remarks, we are not talking of family 
obligations to the elderly. They have earned their right 
in the Social Security System and in the Government 
Service Insurance System by paying to these funds all 
their working lives, only to be rewarded later with 
pittances, strictly disproportionate to the money they 
have paid out of their very low wages throughout their 
working lives. The veterans, of course, already have 
earned a niche for themselves in the Declaration of 
Principles. 

The de Castro amendment is actually taken from a 
provision already existing, I understand, in the Declara- 
tion of Principles. 


So, when we speak of State protection for the 
elderly, we are giving a mandate especially to the SSS, 
the GSIS and the Pension Funds of the Armed Forces of 
the Philippines, that they should not cheat their own 
members by denying them living retirement pay that 
they have already earned in this system by faithfully 
remitting their premium contributions all of their 
working lives. 

That is one very important significance of this pro- 
posed amendment. Madam President. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog- 
nized. 

MR. MONSOD. May we just say that Section 13 
precisely begins with the phrase “The State shall protect 
and promote” and talks of a comprehensive integrated 
health care to all the people, with priority to the elderly 
and the aged, et cetera. So, we believe that this amply 
covers the elderly. However, we leave it to the vote of 
the body. Madam President. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de Castro is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DE CASTRO. We have been talking about the 
elderly, war veterans and government retirees. I believe, 
and I made mention of my Resolution No. 497 co- 
authored with Commissioner Nolledo, it is timely that 
we read a provision of Resolution No. 497. It says: 

It shall be the responsibility of the State to provide 
adequate care and benefits for war veterans and government 
retirees as well as their dependents commensurate with 
their present conditions in hfe. Preference shall be given 
these war veterans and government retirees in the acquisi- 
tion of public lands and the development of natural 
resources. 

May I be allowed to explain this. 

THE PRESIDENT. But the point is that this parti- 
cular idea of the Gentleman is already in the Article on 
Declaration of Principles. That is what I understand; 
that is what was stated. What we have here now is just 
Commissioner Ople’s amendment on the welfare of the 
elderly. 

MR. DE CASTRO. I was thinking if the elderly can 
also be included in this resolution because they are also 
war veterans and government retirees. While this was 
referred by the Committee on the Accountability of 
Public Officers to the Committee on Declaration of 
Principles, it is not yet in the report of the Committee 
on Declaration of Principles because the reference was 
late. 


138 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1 986 


THE PRESIDENT. Is Commissioner Ople agreeable 
to the suggestion of Commissioner de Castro? Actually, 
the proposal of Commissioner de Castro is an amend- 
ment to the amendment. 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, I am a veteran of 
World War II but I am not retired. There are 600,000 
veterans in the country. Approximately half of these are 
retired and the others are not retired. However, there is 
no bar to providing for the veterans in our proposed 
amendment although the right place for veterans ... I 
would like to be associated with Commissioner de 
Castro in that proposal provided it is appropriately 
located in the Article on Declaration of Principles or in 
the General Provisions, perhaps immediately following 
the statement concerning the Armed Forces and the 
defense of the State. 

THE PRESIDENT. So, just to clarify from the Com- 
^ttee. The Committee does not accept the proposed 
amendment. It does not also accept the inclusion 
of the issue on veterans in this particular section of the 
Article on Social Justice. Is that correct? 

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President. 
ni^Tffi PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recog- 

SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

sessiM 3sk for a suspension lof the 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended. 

It was 12:18 p.m. 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DAVIDE. Considering that there are several 
issues related to this, whether this particular amendment 
would be proper in the Article on Declaration of Prin- 
ciples, I would raise a privilege motion. The privilege 
motion is to consider the Ople proposal in the Article 
on Declaration of Principles. 

MR. OPLE. I oppose this motion. Madam President, 
and I would like a vote on it. 

THE PRESIDENT. We will put it to a vote then. 
Actually in the vote, we may already consider the pro- 
posed amendment of Commissioner Ople, whether this 
proposed section should be adopted in the section of 
the Article on Social Justice or not. Is that correct? 

MR. DAVIDE. So, the privilege motion is to take this 
up when we consider the Article on Declaration of 
Principles. 

THE PRESIDENT. That would be the effect of what- 
ever action is taken by the body. 

MR. DAVIDE. Yes. 

THE PRESIDENT. Those in favor of including this 
Ople amendment on the elderly in the Article on Social 
Justice, please raise their hand. 

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, may we restate the 
motion submitted by Honorable Davide? I think it is 
the other way around. 

MR. DAVIDE. Yes. 


resumption of SESSION 
At 12:23p.m., the session was resumed. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed. 


MR. ROMULO. Yes, the motion is not clear. Madam 
President. 

MR. DAVIDE. The motion is to consider this Ople 
proposal in the Article on Declaration of Principles. 


MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de Castro is recog- 


MR. OPLE. I support the decision of the Chair, which 
was very deliberately arrived at, that the voting be on 
the amendment itself. 


to^he Ople^propoSi bee ^ 

* * ^ posai because I sincerplv HpHpvp 

provisions on war vett»rt.«o oeiieve 

p^perly belong to the Art4t D^SZ^of R 


THE PRESIDENT, niankyou. 

We will now proceed to vote on the amendment. 

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President. 


RULING OF THE CHAIR 


THE PRESIDENT. While Commissioner Davide said 
that this motion is a privilege motion, I believe we 
should take this up directly to the point whether this 
proposed section properly belongs to the Article on 
Social Justice. If it is so decided by the body, then we 
will vote on whether it should be included. In other 
words, are we in favor of this particular section? It does 
not necessarily mean that if it is adopted, that if we 
agree that it be included here, the section itself on the 
elderly is meritorious. Should it be here or should it be 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9. 1986 


139 


in some other section? That is the point that we should 
first decide. Secondly, if it should be here, are we in 
favor? If it is properly here in the Article on Social 
Justice, are we in favor of having a separate section on 
the elderly or is it already included, as stated by the 
Committee, in Section 13 where the word “aged” is 
already stated? That is how the Chair sees it. 

MR. OPLE. Just to simplify, Madam President, are' 
we voting on the merits of this amendment first? 

THE PRESIDENT. Not yet because the Davide 
amendment proposes an alternative. Should it be here 
or should it be in some other section? So, let us first 
decide where it should belong — in the Article on Decla- 
ration of Principles, General Provisions or Family 
Rights, as stated by Commissioner Davide? 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, will it be possible for 
Commissioner Davide to agree to a voting on the merits? 
If it loses, then that will not bar anyone from taking this 
up again in connection with the report of the Commit- 
tee on the Declaration of Principles? 

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair would prefer it that 
way. 

MR. OPLE. Thank you. 

THE PRESIDENT. What does Commissioner Davide 
say? 

MR. DAVIDE. I really consider it a prejudicial 
question because there are proposals that it should be in 
the Declaration of Principles or anywhere else. There are 
proposals that it should be here. So, we should decide 
first whether it should be here or in the Declaration of 
Principles. 

THE PRESIDENT. Or somewhere else? 

MR. DAVIDE. Yes. 

THE PRESIDENT. So, if you vote yes, then you 
believe that this is a proper provision in the Article on 
Social Justice. If you vote no, then you believe it should 
be somewhere else, either in the Article on Family 
Rights, Declaration of Principles or General Provisions. 

MR. MONSOD. May we just say that the Committee’s 
position is that it is meritorious and it is already in- 
cluded in Section 13. 


VOTING 

THE PRESIDENT. As many as are in favor of con- 
sidering this proposed Ople amendment as part of the 
Article on Social Justice, please raise their hand. (Few 
Members raised their hand.) 


As many as are against, please raise their hand. 
( Several Members raised their hand.) 

The results show 15 votes in favor and 19 against; 
the Ople amendment would not be considered in the 
Article on Social Justice but may be considered in some 
other Article of the Constitution. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there is stiU one 
anterior provision that has not been voted on as a com- 
plete text. May I ask that we vote on Section 14, as 
amended. 

THE PRESIDENT. WiU Commissioner Quesada please 
read Section 14, as amended? 

MS. QUESADA. “The State shall establish and main- 
tain an effective food and drug regulatory system and 
UNDERTAKE appropriate health manpower develop- 
ment and research RESPONSIVE TO THE COUN- 
TRY’S HEALTH NEEDS AND problems.” 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) 
The Chair hears none; Section 14, as amended, is ap- 
proved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there are no propo- 
nents of amendments to the last section which is 
Section 15. So, I ask that we vote on Section 15 as a 
whole. 

THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Quesada please 
read Section 15? 

MS. QUESADA. “The State shall establish a special 
body for disabled persons for THEIR rehabilitation, 
self-development and self-reliance AND towards their 
total integration to the maiastream of society.” 

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DAVIDE. I have a very minor amendment, and 
that is to delete “towards.” 

THE PRESIDENT. So, it will read: “self-reliance 
AND their total integration.” 

MS. QUESADA. The amendment is accepted. 

MR. OPLE. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized. 

MR. OPLE. May I ask the Committee a question? 
Does the term “disabled” in this context also include, 
let us say, ex-convicts, people who are in most ways 
psychologically wounded, and presumably in a certain 


/ 




140 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


narrow context also disabled, and in many ways, also MR. RAMA. May I ask that Commissioner Romulo 
legally and socially disabled because in a society like be recognized, 
ours, they are subject to continuing penalties of ostrac- 
ism? Are the ex-prisoners and ex-convicts included THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Romulo is recog- 
within the compass of the disabled in this sense? nized. 


MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, excuse me. May the 

Committee be allowed to state its position regarding this 
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog- particular section, 
nized. 


MR. BENNAGEN. Profitting from the extensive 
deliberations we had with the representatives of the 
disabled, my undertanding of a disabled is one who 
suffers from some kind of derangement, but not neces- 
sarily by virtue of his being an ex-convict because 
ex-convicts would be adequately rehabilitated. 

MR. OPLE. Yes. Does the Gentleman consider them 
qualified for the rehabilitation services provided for in 
this section? 

MR. BENNAGEN. I think they have to enter what we 
ca t e access agencies and should be properly categor- 
ize as such depending on their personal situations. 

the Committee adopt this position 
ot Commissioner Bennagen? 


MS. QUESADA. Yes, 
hearings with the disabled 


this was based on the public 
groups. 


mittPP th this will save me and the Cc 

not inf'll H proposing an amendment if thi 

ncluded within the definition of the disabled. 


orieinal ^lAGEN. Yes, as a matter of fact, the 

taliv only referred to those who are men- 

Prim P^y^^^^tly handicapped. Some members of the 
wni °^-i®^ted to that definition because that 

die KT ^ huge number of people who are 

3 e nientally, sensorially, psychologically, et cetera. 


m-++^ '■^^t understanding, since the Com- 

1 ee as adopted this, I will not press my amendment. 


MR. BENNAGEN. Thank you. Madam President. 


MR. BENGZON. May we vote now on Section 15? 


TlJph ^‘^i^SIDENT. Is there 
Ihe Chair hears none; Section 1 


any objection? (Silence) 
5 is approved. 


MR. RAMA. Madam President the onlv remain 
section under this Article is thP .III ^ 


MR. BENGZON. Yes. 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recog- 
nized. 

MR. SUAREZ. May we request the recognition of 
Honorable Garcia? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Garcia is recog- 
nized. 

MR. GARCIA. First of all, we would like to read 
Sections 19 and 20, as revised, after having considered 
the amendments and suggestions of various Com- 
missioners, especially Commissioners Davide, Ople, 
Rosario Braid, Romulo and, of course, the members of 
the Committee. So, with you is the original draft ot tlie 
Committee plus a half page where we make an effort to 
give the definition of people’s organizations as part of 
Section 19. So, I will read the two sections and then 
give a very brief explanation. 

SEC. 19. In the pursuit of the ends of Social Justice, tlie 
State shall respect the independence and the role of 
people’s organizations as a means of empowering the people 
to pursue and protect througli peaceful means their legiti- 
mate and collective interests and aspirations. 

People’s organizations are bona fide associations of 
citizens' with identifiable leadership, membership and struc- 
ture and demonstrated capacity to promote the public 
interest. 

\ SEC. 20. The State shall respect the right of the people 
and their organizations to effective and reasonable par- 
ticipation at all levels of social, political and economic 
decision-making, and shall MAKE POSSIBLE adequate 
consultation mechanisms. 

I will present a very brief explanation for Sections 
19 and 20 and why we feel these are very important and 
integral parts of the entire Article on Social Justice. 

Empowering the people is a key to the attainment of 
the ends of social justice. So, in this new constitution, 
we feel we must recognize that people’s organizations 
can be one significant vehicle in this progressive and 
democratic tradition. The majority of no wealth nor 
political influence can empower themselves through 
people’s organizations that are popular and authentic 
expressions of their will. Indeed, it is argued here that 
people s power can find most permanent, organized and 
articulate expression through such organizations withhi 
the democratic framework. The new constitution must, 
therefore, recognize the role of people’s organizations 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


141 


as a principal means of empowering the people to 
pursue and protect, in a peaceful manner, popular and 
social reforms and mandate the State to respect their 
independence as autonomous checks to State power. 
Finally, the new constitution must also institutionalize 
people's participation and ensure consultation among 
the basic sectors at all levels of social, political and 
economic decision-making, guaranteeing that the people 
have access to information necessary to make informed 
and responsible decisions. Concretely, the State must be 
mandated to make possible proper and adequate con- 
sultation mechanisms with the people, and the formula- 
tion and implementation of local, regional and national 
priorities, plans, programs and projects that affect the 
people’s lives. Thus, in sum, empowennent of the 
people is the enabling mechanism in the cause of social 
justice and people’s power can find more permanent 
expression in people’s organizations and through the 
institutionalization of consultation mechanisms that 
insure people’s participation in decision-making. 

We would like now to ask if there are others who may 
wish to add or amend. * 

MR. RAMA. I ask that Commissioner Romulo be 
recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Romulo is recog- 
nized. 

MR. ROMULO. Madam President, this is a brief 
amendment. I would like the Committee to consider the 
deletion of the opening clause “In the pursuit of Social 
Justice” because it is really unnecessary. This whole 
Article is devoted to social justice and Sections 1 and 2 
lay down the basic premise and spell out the means of 
carrying it out. So, I really do not think the opening 
clause is necessary. 

MR. GARCIA. We thought it is important to place it 
because people’s organizations are precise vehicles and 
enabling mechanisms to achieve social justice. Of course, 
it is within the context of the whole Article. 

MR. ROMULO. So are the other provisions but we do 
not begin the other provisions with “In the pursuit of 
social justice, agrarian reform, urban reform, et cetera.” 

MR. GARCIA. That is true but in a sense, this is a 
summary of the different sections. We realize that we 
are going to draft an imperfect constitution and, there- 
fore, it will be up to many of the people’s movements 
and organizations advocating the protection and the in- 
terest of their specific sectors like the farmers in land 
reform and the urban poor to pursue and pressure 
Congress so that it can be responsive to enact the laws 
that will definitely meet their basic needs. So, it is a 
summary that for social justice to be pursued and per- 
fected, these people’s organizations will finish whatever 
we have accomplished. 


MR. ROMULO. Althougli it can have the meaning 
that the other sections are not in the pursuit of social 
justice. 

MR. GARCIA. It does not have that meaning, of 
course. 

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog- 
nized. 

MR. RODRIGO. I would like to ask a basic question. 

MR. BENGZON. Madam President, can we finish first 
the proposal of Commissioner Romulo? 

MR. RODRIGO. I am sorry. 

MR. ROMULO. If the Committee does not accept the 
amendment, I will not insist on that. May I ask what is 
the position of the Committee. 

MR. GARCIA. We would prefer to have this phrase 
m the section. 

MR. ROMULO. Is that the Committee’s response? 

THE PRESIDENT. The Committee does not accept 
the amendment. 

MR. GARCIA. The Committee is divided; there are 
some who feel that it can . . . 

MR. ROMULO. Then may I ask for a vote. 

MR. SUAREZ. How would the amendment read? 

MR. ROMULO. I would delete the phrase “In the 
pursuit of Social Justice” and start with “The State.” 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is the amendment accepted now 
by the Committee? 

MR. SUAREZ. No, Madam President. 

MR. ROMULO. We ask for a vote, Madam President. 
VOTING 

THE PRESIDENT. As many as are in favor of the 
proposed amendment, please raise their hand. (Several 
Members raised their hand.) 

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few 
Members raised their hand.) 

The results show 28 votes in favor and 9 against; the 
proposed amendment is approved. 


142 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


MR. ROMULO. I have another amendment on the 
first line. It will be on the words “the independence 
and.” I believe that this may be misinterpreted to mean 
that other forms of organizations and associations which 
are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights are not entitled 
to independence because we are singling out for respect 
only the so-called people’s organizations. What about 
the other associations hke civic, religious unions, etc. 
which are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights? 

MR. GARCIA. In our understanding, many of these 
associations and organizations can be classified as 
people’s organizations. But the term “independence” is 
important because we want to ensure that these organi- 
zations are not simply or merely a creation of the State, 
that they are not manipulated in any way like what we 
had in the past. And so, it is important to maintain that 
independence so that they can be a check on the power 
of the State, that they are never instruments only of 
whatever group. 


MR. ROMULO. So, the Gentleman does not mean to 
imply that the other types of organizations and associa- 
tions which are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights do 
not deserve a respect of their independence? 


MR. GARCIA. Of course, they have a right to that 
independence too. But what is important is that very 
o en we have organizations that are created, like our 
wpenence with the Samahang Nayon, which are simply 
manipulations or instruments of the State. And we 
want to ensure that there are no labor unions, trade 

umons, or any other organizations that are used for that 
purpose. 


tv. ROMULO. The other implication is that since 
e Gentleman wants the State to respect their in- 
ependence, the State may pass laws or regulations 
ostensibly for the purpose of protecting their inde- 
pendence. Has the Committee considered that? This 
may have a reverse effect. 

MR. GARCIA. We do not beUeve so. Madam Pres- 
ident. 


MR. MONSOD. Madam President, would it solve 
ent ®man s anxiety over the interpretation if we tr< 
pose the word “independent” and say; “The State s: 
uS'^? independent people’s organ 


PFNDFNT Rm?" ^HE INDl 

PENDENT ROLE OF PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS 

•? ^ ^ "mdependence” is not necess 

rily to he organization but to the role which is tl 
principal point. 


MR. GARCIA. I am sorry. It is not simply the role 
but also their independence . . . We should not touch 
the autonomous and authentic character of those 
organizations. 

MR. ROMULO. But that is guaranteed under the Bill 
of Rights. That is my whole point. If we single out one 
type of organization whose independence must be re- 
spected by the State, by implication, we are vitiating the 
general protection provided under the Bill of Rights. 

MR. GARCIA. Anyway, the understanding 1 have is 
that the Gentleman is, in fact, underscoring the impor- 
tance of this thing. But if he wishes, the sentence which 
reads: “The State shall respect the role of INDE- 
PENDENT PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS” would at 
least emphasize the importance. 

MR. ROMULO. Could the Gentleman read it again? 

MR. GARCIA. “The State shall respect the role of 
INDEPENDENT PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS.” 

MR. ROMULO. Fine; I accept. 

MR. GARCIA. Thank you. 

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Rodrigo have 
any comment on this? 

MR. RODRIGO. No, I have another amendment. 

THE PRESIDENT. How is it now. Commissioner 
Garcia? 

MR. GARCIA. The amendment will read: 
shall respect the role of INDEPENDENT PEO 
ORGANIZATIONS ...” 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection 
proposed amendment of Commissioner Romulo w i 
was accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The C ai 
hears none; the amendment is approved. 

Commissioner Colay co is recognized. 

MR. COLAYCO. Thank you. Madam President. If we 
put the adjective “INDEPENDENT” before “PEOPLE’S 
ORGANIZATIONS ” which will be like this: “The State 
shall respect the role of INDEPENDENT PEOPLE’S 
ORGANIZATIONS,” it would seem that there are 
people’s organizations which are not independent. I 
would just omit the adjective “INDEPENDENT,” and it 
will read: “The State shall respect the role of PEOPLE’S 
ORGANIZATIONS.” 


MR. BENGZON. Yes. “The State shall respect the THE PRESIDENT. What does Commissioner Romulo 
INDEPENDENT ROLE ...” say? 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


143 


MR. ROMULO. No, the implication is wrong. Pre- 
cisely, we want the State to respect only a bona fide 
independent people’s organization, not a company 
union. 

MR. BENGZON. Yes, that is the idea. 

MR. GARCIA. Not just any group of individuals. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. 

MR. COLAYCO. 1 fail to see the difference there. I 
think that the word “INDEPENDENT” is a surplusage. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. 

the PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is 

recognized. 

MR. COLAYCO. I do not mind if we do not have 
this. 

MR. BENNAGEN. On behalf of tlie Committee, I 
think the same issue was raised with respect to the ri^t 
of independent peasant organizations. We are saying 
here that there are all sorts of people’s organizations 
and some of these are really company unions and that 
they carry the government line. But we would like to 
encourage as a source of complementary structures the 
existence of independent organizations that can develop 
their development programs apart from those that are 
pursued by governmental structures. 

’ For instance, we can mention peasant organizations 
that are really only supportive of existing government 
programs, which need not really redound to the benefit 
of the peasant themselves. 

MR. COLAYCO. Company unions are not necessarily 
openly dependent. They become dependent when it is 
proven that they are company unions. I mean, prima 
facie, all organizations are independent. Even if we put 
“INDEPENDENT PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS,” 
company unions can always claim that. 

MR. BENNAGEN. That is a manner of speaking. We 
can cite maybe a more specific example, the Kabataang 
Barangay, which in itself is a kind of youth organiza- 
tion which is also under the ambit of people’s organiza- 
tion. But they can be manipulated to carry on the party 
line as it were. That is what we want to avoid. 

MR. COLAYCO. Yes, but I mean, by simply putting 
“INDEPENDENT PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS” does 
not stamp any organization for that matter as inde- 
pendent. As I said, a company union can always claim 
to be an independent organization, which they always 
do anyway. 


MR. BENNAGEN. I cannot follow because by 
definition, when we speak of company union, it carries 
the thrust of the company which may become produc- 
tive to the interest of authentic labor unions. 

MR. COLAYCO. But they are not officially called 
company unions. I will not press my point on this. I 
think that saving the time of the Commission is more 
important than this. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Even ILO Convention 141, to 
which the Philippines is a signatory', assigns this role to 
independent organizations. 

MR. RAMA. The Commission is ready to vote, 
Madam President. 

VOTING 

THE PRESIDENT. Is this clear: “The State shall 
respect the role of INDEPENDENT PEOPLE’S OR- 
GANIZATIONS”? That is what is to be voted upon. 

m 

As many as are in favor of this particular amendment, 
please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their 
hand.) 

As many as are against, please raise their hand, (No- 
body raised his hand. ) 

MR. RODRIGO. I register my abstention. Madam 
President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Just a minute, we will just an- 
nounce the results. 

The results show 28 votes in favor, no vote against 
and one abstention; the amendment is approved. 

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, may I ask that I 
be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog- 
nized. 

MR. RODRIGO. Just a basic question. I have before 
me the text of the Bill of Rights which we have ap- 
proved already. Section 7 provides: 

The right of the people, including those employed in 
the public and private sectors, to form associations, unions 
or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be 
abridged. 

Section 9 reads: 

No law shall be passed abridging the right of the people 
peaceably to assemble and petition the government for 
redress of grievances. 

I would like to ask: Do these provisions not cover the 
“people’s organizations’’ which are sought to be pro- 
tected again by the government under Sections 1 9 and 
20 ? 


144 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


MR. GARCIA. Sections 19 and 20 have a very 
particular thrust: as an enabling mechanism precisely 
to make social justice real. The encouragement is given 
to the people that they organize themselves, that they 
protect their legitimate interests peacefully througli 
their collective efforts. That is the whole thrust. 


MR. DAVIDE. The proper reference to that would 
really be the people’s organization. So, it is to these 
organizations that the respect must be accorded to. 

MR. GARCIA. No, I am sorry. It is basic to the 
people. 


MR. RODRIGO. Yes, I understand. 

MR. GARCIA. Therefore, what does it do? It refines 
and it amplifies what we already have in the Bill of 
Rights, specifically, because of the whole vision that we 
have of social justice. If the Gentleman will remember, 
when we began the definition, we said “to redistribute 
wealth and power.” In other words, it is not simply the 
State later on which will ensure that all of these pro- 
tections and recognition of rights are given but the 
people also must have a legitimate share of pohtical 
power for them to participate. And so, this is the vehicle 
for them. 


MR. RODRIGO. I just want to be very brief. So is it 
my understanding now that even without these provi- 
^ons, the general provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of our 
ill of Rights would cover this, but for emphasis the 
Committee wants to particularize? 

MR. GARCIA. Yes, that is the intent. Madam Pres- 
ident. 

MR RODRIGO. But this is already covered in 
general. 


f general rights are found in the Bill 

of Rights. 

MR. RODRIGO. So, this is only to particularize and 
for emphasis. 

MR. GARCIA. Yes. 


MR. RAMA. Madam President, there are three more 
speakers on the two sections. May I ask that Com- 
rnissioncr Davidc b6 recognized? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 


MR. DAVIDE. In effect, we will broaden the provi- 
sion, and it might become rather deceptive. 


MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. 

MR. DAVIDE. “The State shall respect the role of 
INDEPENDENT PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS as a 
means of empowering them to pursue and protect 
through peaceful means their legitimate. . .,” meaning, 
again, the organization. 


MR. GARCIA. No. Madam President; in fact, many 
people are unorganized while others are organizing, but 
some are already organized. In a sense, we are trying to 
say that only a citizenry that is organized and mobilized 
can really pursue this very difficult endeavor of the 
State. In fact, if the Gentleman will remember, in many 
of the previous interventions, when we spoke of the 
unfinished popular revolution of February, we said it 
was a political act and that the social changes which are 
unfinished still have to be pursued. It is not only the 
task of the State but also the people. We will still have 
to pursue this through their organizations. 


MR. DAVIDE. In other words, these organizations 
would be the vehicle of the people? , 

MR. GARCIA. Exactly. 

MR. DAVIDE. Then I will not insist. But after the 
word “protect,” I would seek certain transpositions^ 
Delete “through peaceful means” and in lieu ^hereo i^ 
sert the following: WITHIN THE DEMOCRA 

FRAMEWORK. And then, after “aspirations,” i«ser 
THROUGH PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL ^^ANS. So, 
will read: the people to pursue and protect, WITH 
THE DEMOCRATIC FRAMEWORK, their legitirna^ 
and collective interests and aspirations THROUGH 
PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL MEANS.” 


MR. DAVIDE. Thank you, Madam President. 
<lp<'tinn’L’^Li f®''' amendments. On line 

tute the wr^THEM 

MR. GARCIA. We accept, Madam President. 


MR. GARCIA. We accept. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this 
proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide which 
has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The 
Chair hears none; the amendment is approved. 


THE PRESIDENT. Is there any other amendment? 

MR. GARCIA. Excuse me. I am sorry. This is not 
simply to empower the organization but the people. It 
is a vehicle to empower the people. 


MR. RAMA. Madam President, may I ask that Com- 
missioner Aquino be recognized? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Aquino is recog- 
nized. 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


145 


MS. AQUINO. Madam President, I move to delete the 
phrase “as a means of empowering the people” on lines 
2 and 3 of Section 19. 

MR. AZCUNA. Madam President. 

MR. SUAREZ. Excuse me. Could Commissioner 
Aquino repeat the proposed amendment? 

MS. AQUINO. Delete the phrase “as a means of 
empowering the people.” I believe that it is an abstract 
diversion which conjures an image of an adversarial or 
conflict situation, and I would much rather that we 
focus clearly on the intent which is to pursue and 
protect within the democratic framework, after the 
Davide amendment, their legitimate and collective 
interests and aspirations. 

MR. AZCUNA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Azcuna is recog- 
nized. 

MR. GARCIA. Excuse me. Madam President. May I 
answer? I believe tliat tlie phrase “empowering the 
people” is very important here. Our experience in the 
past, precisely, underlines the fact that unless our 
people are organized and mobilized to pursue their 
collective interests and their legitimate ends, they are 
powerless. Precisely, our purpose is to mention this. 

MR. AZCUNA. I would like to suggest only that 
instead of deleting it, why not just say “TO ENABLE 
the people,” because the phrase “empowering the 
people” is really objectionable. Power is supposed to 
reside in the people and the State should not empower 
the people because they already have the power. What 
we should do is to enable the people to exercise that 
power So, I believe it would be better if we say; “The 
State shall respect the role of independent people’s 
organizations TO ENABLE the people to pursue and 
protect,” because it is the people who really should do 

this. 

MS. AQUINO. I accept. Madam President. 

the PRESIDENT. What does Commissioner Aquino 
say? 

MS. AQUINO. I accept the amendment to the amend- 
ment. 

MR. GARCIA. I just want to make a clarification. 
Here, we are not saying that the State will empower the 
people — not at all. We are saying that the organizations 
are the means of empowering the people. It is an injunc- 
tion; in fact, it is almost an encouragement for them to 
get organized and to be involved. It is very difficult for 
people to be involved individually if they are going to 


protect their interests. They, therefore, must discover 
that vehicle which will empower them and these are the 
organizations we are referring to. 

MR. BENNAGEN. May I, Madam President? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog- 
nized. 

MR. BENNAGEN. I think the idea really is for 
people, in their organized numbers, to recover their 
power which has been lost by their being atomized into 
passive individuals; and for me, it may not really be 
necessary because it can lend a number of misinterpreta- 
tions. All we want to say is that the people, to recover 
their sense of strength, must come together to pursue 
their collective interests. I think that is the intent and 
not for anything. It is not for the State or an external 
agency to provide this power but the people themselves 
must recover and restore this to themselves. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President. 

MR. AZCUNA. So, we reiterate our amendment. 
Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is Commissioner Azcuna satis- 
fied? 

MR. AZCUNA. No, Madam President. We would like 
to insist on the amendment to delete the phrase “as a 
principal means of empowering the people” and instead, 
insert the phrase “TO ENABLE the people.” So that it 
will read: “The State shall respect the role of inde- 
pendent people’s organizations TO ENABLE the people 
to pursue and protect ...” 

THE PRESIDENT. Instead of “empowering,” it will 
be “TO ENABLE the people.” 

MR. AZCUNA. Yes. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, the situation calls for 
a vote now. 

VOTING 

the PRESIDENT. Yes. As many as are in favor of 
this proposed amendment of Commissioners Aquino 
and Azcuna, please raise their hand. ( Several Members 
raised their hand.) 

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few 
Members raised their hand.) 

The results show 30 votes in favor and 8 votes 
against; the ainendment is approved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there are no amend- 
ments- to Section 20, which is the last section; so 1 ask 
that a vote be taken on Section 20. 


146 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


THE PRESIDENT. We have not yet voted on Section MR. OPLE. Madam President. 

19 as a whole. Will Commissioner Garcia please read 

Section 19, as amended? THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized. 


MR. GARCIA. Section 19, as amended, will read: 
“The State shall respect the role of independent 
people’s organizations to enable the people to pursue 
and protect within the democratic framework, their 
legitimate and coUective interests and aspirations 
through peaceful and lawful means.” 

THE PRESIDENT. There is a second paragraph. 

MR. GARCIA. There are no amendments on the 
second paragraph. 


MR. OPLE. Madam President, may I suggest that we 
limit the vote to the first sentence, because I would like 

to engage in a brief discussion later on concerning the 
second sentence. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? 

MR. MA^BONG. Madam President, just a very 
Z^apT ^ by the second 

I notice that we are about to vote on the paragraph. 

THE PRESIDENT. That is the first paragraph. 

President. When 

aoostrnnho • people’s organizations,” the 

letter £ while in the Committee 

u/h,Vh^ k"’ apostrophe is after the letter S. Which is 
Inch, because the meaning will vary? 

til GARCIA. People’s” is with an apostrophe after 
the letter it is just a typographical error. 

MR. MAAMBONG. Thank you. 

VOTING 

i^ariy as are in favor of the 
Commkti?^^ Section 19 which has been read by 

Members 

Mmb7^mtsShJhmT^^' 

The results show 38 vote^ in r 

against; the fust sentence of Action "V 

Ttan...<a Jo ^ootion 19 IS approved. 

There is a second naraoMnk u- . 
by Commissioner Garcia. ^ before 

MR. GARCIA. PEOPLE’S oor'AxtTo, 

BONA FIDE associations OF 

IDENTIFIABLE LEADER <ihtd CITIZENS WITH 

STRUCTURE AND DEMONSTiUTEDC^^TarY TO 
PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST 


MR. OPLE. Will the Committee yield to some ques- 
tions concerning the second paragraph? 

First of all, do I understand it right that this is a con- 
solidation of several proposed amendments which were 
earlier brought to the attention of the Committee by 
Commissioners Christian Monsod, Ricardo Romulo, 
Hilario Davide, Jr. and myself? 

This definition of people’s organization is acceptable 
to me, being one of the proponents of the amendments 
which are now considered subsumed in this definition. 
But I thought I would make the observation that, 
indeed, this draft Constitution, not only in the Article 
on Social Justice but in other Articles, will probably 
stand out among contemporary constitutions once it is 
ratified in one respect: there is a fairly ubiquitous 
reference to people’s power in several forms as one of 
the guiding principles for a new social order that is, in 
effect, ordained by this Constitution. Thus, people s 
organizations may initiate amendments to the Constitu- 
tion and the laws through the power of initiative and 
referendum already vested in them elsewhere. They rnay 
even overthrow a government that will become a traitor 
to the people and their Constitution. This is found in 
the Declaration of Principles. They shall participate m 
carrying out the mandates on social justice, especially in 
the fields of labor and agrarian reform. And under this 
new section that we are considering, they are constitu- 
tionalized for purposes of participating in all levels ot 
decision-making of the government and they initiate the 
socioeconomic structures that will best conform to the 
standards of social justice. 

So, with all the powers and duties vested in these 
organizations, I am glad the Committee has agreed to 
incorporate a definition of these organizations. How- 
ever, I would like to call the attention of the Cornmit- 
tee, or I should put this as a question to the Committee. 
I suppose that people’s organizations do embrace m 
groups of citizens that band together voluntarily for the 
pursuit of public interest. Would that be correct? 


MR. GARCIA. That is correct. Madam President. 

MR. OPLE. Therefore, this would include both labor 
and peasant organizations? 

MR. GARCIA. Yes, including professional, neighbor- 
hood and civic associations, ethnic and cultural groups, 
and so on. 

MR. OPLE. And presumably, because of the tripartite 
character of negotiations for industrial peace, these 
should also include associations of landowners and 
associations of business and industry. 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


147 


MR. GARCIA. Yes, because they also pursue the 
public interest. 

MR. OPLE. May I call the attention of the Commit- 
tee to the fact that in the case of bona fide labor and 
peasant organizations, they do write their own constitu- 
tions and bylaws embodying their principles as well as 
their rules of internal life. And in the case of labor 
organizations, tliese are deposited in the competent 
authority of the government; that is, the Ministry of 
Labor and Employment. Of course, when one deter- 
mines the most representative workers’ organization for 
the purpose of appointing delegates to international 
labor conferences, these reports also serve as a basis for 
determining who should be chosen. The Committee had 
earlier considered, as part of my proposed amendment, 
a minor requirement where, just in the case of bona fide 
labor organizations, the people’s organizations which 
were given these powers in the Constitution would be 
asked to submit their constitutions and bylaws, together 
with the list of their elected and appointive officers, and 
these are deposited in the office of the government with 
competent authority. 

Since labor organizations are already covered by these 
laws, then the rigor of the qualifications to be con- 
sidered bona fide and independent people’s organization 
would be higlrer in the case of labor than in the case of 
other organizations, including civic associations. Would 
that be correct? 

MR. GARCIA. We are not trying to establish a 
hierarchy of one being more important than the other. 
We are saying that they have an equal rule. In as far as 
they can protect the public interests, in a far more effec- 
tive and better way . . . 

MR. OPLE. I am describing an existing situation 
where by virtue of the existing law, there is indeed a 
higher standard of rigor for labor organizatioiis than in 
the case of nonlabor organizations, except those that 
register with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

Would the Committee not consider equalizing this 
standard of rigor for all by also requiring the other 
people’s organizations to deposit their constitufions 
and bylaws in an appropriate office of the government? 

MR. GARCIA. Madam President, there are also 
different levels of organizations and their nature vary. 
Therefore there are some who may not even have 
constitutions and bylaws. They may just simply have a 
declaration of principles and a program of action. 
Therefore, we also have to respect that level of political 
maturity or that level of organization which those 
groups have. 

MR. OPLE. Yes. I am not going to insist on that. 

MR. GARCIA. We would not want to impose simply 
one standard. 


MR. OPLE. I am not going to insist on that because 
I already yielded to the Committee’s request earlier. 
But would Commissioner Garcia, for purposes of record- 
ing the intent of the Committee, not agree that in the 
future, all the independent people’s organizations, 
considering the powers and duties vested in them in this 
Constitution, including the possibility of participating 
in regional development councils and the planning work 
of the National Economic and Development Authority, 
should be encouraged to rise to a level of maturity and 
responsibility where they will write their own constitu- 
tions and bylaws for their own internal guidance and for 
the guidance of those who support them? 

MR. GARCIA. Yes. According to their capability and 
capacity, of course, we would like to encourage their 
political development and maturity. 

MR. OPLE. If that is admitted as an objective under 
this paragraph, then I will not insist on reviving that 
amendment. 

Thank you. Madam President. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, we can now take a 
vote on the second paragraph. 

THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Garcia read 
again the second paragraph? 

MR. DAVIDE. I have a very minor amendment, 
Madam President, on the second paragraph. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. # 

MR. DAVIDE. Before “people’s,” insert the word 
“independent”; and then between the letters “e” and 
“s” in “peoples,” insert an apostrophe (’). 

THE PRESIDENT. Where will the word “indepen- 
dent” be? 


MR. DAVIDE. Before the word “peoples,” place the 
word “independent,” then place an apostrophe (’) be- 
tween “e” and “s” in “peoples.” 

MR. GARCIA. Accepted, Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Maambong is 
recognized. 

MR. MAAMBONG. May I propose an amendment by 
substituting the word “identifiable” with IDENTIFIED, 
unless the Committee intentionally used the word 
“identifiable.” 


MR. GARCIA. It is “identifiable.” 


148 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


MR. MAAMBONG. Because “IDENTIFIED” would 
mean that there is no other action to be taken because 
they are already identified. In the case of “identifiable,” 
I would take it to mean that some effort has to be done 
and there is the capability of identifying them. Why do 
we have to hide the identities? Why do we just say 
“IDENTIFIED leadership”? 


MR. DAVIDE. I understand that Commissioner 
Garcia accepted it earlier. If Commissioner Garcia would 
agree to the proposal of Commissioner Monsod, I am 
not insisting on that particular amendment. 

MR. GARCIA. I concur with the opinion of Com- 
missioner Monsod. 


MR. GARCIA. I do not think there is a need for that. 
THE PRESIDENT. Does the Committee accept? 

MR. GARCIA. We do not accept. 


MR. DAVIDE. So, the only amendment is the apos- 
trophe (’). 

MR. RAMA. So, we are now ready to vote on the 
amendment on the second paragraph. Madam President. 


MR. MAAMBONG. I will not press the amendment. 

MR. RAMA. The amendment has been withdrawn. 
Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Let us vote on the Davide amend- 
ment first. 


MR. RAMA. Yes. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog- 
nized. 


MR. MONSOD. We would like to request Com- 

inserting the word “IN- 
li NDENT because what we are defining here are 
people s organizations,” not independent people’s 
organizations. The word “INDEPENDENT” is already 

m the first section and perhaps it is not necessary to put 
this here. 


MR. DAVIDE. I think it is necessary because by 
virtue of the amendments earlier introduced, the open- 
ing sentence of Section 19 will read: “The State shall 
respect the role of independent people’s organizations 
to enable the people to pursue and protect ...” 

MR. MON SOD. Madam President, there is nothing in 
the definition that is relevant to the word “INDEPEN- 
DENT. The definition that is here is to “people’s or- 
ganizations. I am just wondering whether it is still 
necessary to put that. Are we saying that to make the 
distinction here may not be necessary? 


MR. RAMA. So what is the position of the Commit- 
tee so we can vote? 


MR. MONSOD. We would rather not have the word 
“INDEPENDENT.” If the Commissioner insists, we may 
have to go to a vote. 

THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Davide insist? 


VOTING 

THE PRESIDENT. As many as are in favor of the 
second paragraph of Section 19, please raise their hand. 
(Several Members raised their hand.) 

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No 
Member raised his hand.) 

The results show 39 votes in favor and no vote 
against; the second paragraph of Section 19 is approved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there is a minor 
amendment to Section 20 by Commissioner Maambong. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Maambong is 
recognized. 

MR. MAAMBONG. I propose a minor amendment on 
Section 20 by adding the words AS DETERMINED BY 
LAW. 

THE PRESIDENT. Where? 

MR. MAAMBONG. In' the last sentence after the 
word “mechanisms.” I feel. Madam President, that the 
phrase “AS DETERMINED BY LAW” is necessary 
in order that we could provide the mechanics and 
the process of consultation; otherwise, the consultation 
mechanism would be meaningless. 

THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say? 
May we have the reaction of the Committee? 

MR. GARCIA. The understanding is that whether 
there is a law or not, this basic right must be respected 
and they should be consulted. The consultation mechan- 
ism itself could be threshed out and discussed, and later 
on, we need not have a law for that right. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog- 
nized. 

MR. MONSOD. The Committee believes that the 
phrase “within the democratic framework” might 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


149 


already be sufficient that we do not need to put the 
phrase “AS DETERMINED BY LAW.” 

MR. GARCIA. Yes. 

MR. MONSOD. As a matter of fact, there are already 
mechanisms in place now that did not need legislation. 


MR. REGALADO. I proposed the same amendment 
before because even in Section 3 (b), we stated that 
with respect to labor, they shall also participate in 
policy- and decision-making processes affecting their 
rights and interests as may be provided by law. Is there 
a difference insofar as the participation of labor is 
concerned? 


MR. GARCIA. Yes, that is correct. 

THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Maambong 
insist? 

MR. MAAMBONG. My only point, Madam President, 
is that we make possible adequate consultation mechan- 
isms but if we do not operationalize this consultation 
mechanism by some law or some process, how could we 
make it effective? 


MR. GARCIA. It appears in other people’s organiza- 
tions as we already mentioned. In fact, the executive 
department or the different ministries can create these 
mechanisms where the people can be consulted and 
their ideas be incorporated for a better decision-making 
process. In other cases, the people themselves can create 
these mechanisms and structures and invite all officials 
involved so tlrat the decision-making process can be 
made better. 


MR. GARCIA. In fact, we have discussed that earlier. 
This is happening in some of the ministries. In the Of- 
fice of the President, tliere are already consultations 
going on, but the mechanism itself will be refined by 
practice. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog- 
nized. 

MR. BENNAGEN. I agree with the comments of 
Commissioners Monsod and Garcia as to the spon- 
taneous but rather effective and dynamic people’s 
organizations and consultations with government. I 
think the problem with including that phrase “AS 
DETERMINED BY LAW” is for the law to delimit the 
possibilities of people’s organizations consulting with 
government. We are saying that the full potential of 
people’s organizations consulting with government can- 
not be accommodated by law. Therefore, to put that is 
already to provide some limitations to the fuller 
expression of people’s organizatioins. 

MR. REGALADO. Madam President. 

MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President, this is not 
really the intention of the proponent but if the Com- 
mittee feels that way, we do not have to put it to a vote. 

THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Maambong 
insist? 


MR. REGALADO. In the discussion that took place 
earlier, it was said 'that Section 20 also encompasses the 
matter of labor unions. But here, the proponents do not 
want to have that phrase AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY 
LAW whereas, under the subparagraph on labor, that 
phrase appears. So, if it is a labor union on one hand 
under Section 3 (b), they will be subjected to the provi- 
sions of the law. However, in applying Section 20, the 
Committee does not want to have that same regulatory 
provision. 

MR. GARCIA. No, excuse me. I just want to clarify. 
What the Commissioner intends is not to wait for the 
legislature to enact a law before consultation mechanism 
can take place. In fact, we are saying it is already taking 
place. A public hearing is a very clear example of how 
an interaction between those who are supposed to enact 
laws and the people for whom the laws are supposed 
to be made should be for a better process of lawmaking. 

MR. REGALADO. So, it is a question of time. Why 
do we not say “AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW”? 

MR. GARCIA. It is not merely a question of time. 
Very often those who govern do not, in a sense, recog- 
nize the people’s right of participation and consultation. 
And we feel that it is important to establish this 
principle here. 


MR. REGALADO. Is it the apprehension of Com- 
missioner Garcia that if we put the phrase “AS MAY 

BE PROVIDED BY LAW,” the law may stifle their 
nghts? 


MR. MAAMBONG. We will submit. 

MR. REGALADO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Regalado is recog- 
nized. 


MR. GARCIA. It can be a constraining factor. In 
other words, the people will feel that there might be a 
need tor legislative action as a precondition before they 
can exercise their right to participate using the proper 
consultation mechanisms or before they, in fact, can 
organize. 


150 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


MR. REGALADO. So, we go back to that original The results show 21 votes in favor and 16 votes 
question we asked on labor where he agreed that it against; the amendment is approved, 
should be a consultative process and their participation 

therein may be as provided by law because it might . MR. RAMA. Madam President, there are no more 
conflict with the other existing laws. In effect, it is amendments to Section 20, so I ask that it be voted 
actually just a regulatory implementation. on as a whole. 


MR. MONSOD. Madam President, in the case of 
Section 3, on labor, it is not only a question between 
organizations and the government; it is also a question 
of a third party, which is the enterprise. That is why it 
might be necessary to have the law define the respective 
rights of these two — the employer and the employee. 

In this case, we are referring to organizations of 
people themselves and, secondly, these consultative 
mechanisms are already placed in many sections of the 
government. It might impair that right, if we have to 
say that it has to be formalized in a law. 

This section does not say that a law may not be 
passed. It is possible that it will be passed. We are just 
saying that we do not want it to look like a precondi- 
tion for the exercise of consultation. 


THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Garcia please 
read the section. 

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recog- 
nized. 

MR. SUAREZ. Is the exact wording of the amend- 
ment “AS DETERMINED BY LAW” or “AS MAY BE 
PROVIDED BY LAW”? 

MR. REGALADO. “AS DETERMINED BY LAW” 
was the amendment of Commissioner Maambong who 
withdrew the same. Mine was “AS MAY BE PRO- 
VIDED BY LAW.” 


THE PRESIDENT. Is Commissioner Regalado intro- 
ducing another amendment which has been withdrawn 
by Commissioner Maambong? 

MR. REGALADO. Yes, Madam President, I would 

n here, because in the first 

onimissioner Monsod says that there is nothing 
mat will prevent the enactment of such a law. So, why 
not make it specific‘s 


THE PRESIDENT. So, let us put it to a vote ther 

^®ndment is to add the phrase “A 
MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.” 

^ many as are in favor of this proposed amendmer 
ot Commissioner Regalado, please raise their hand. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. 


MR. BROCKA. Madam President. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Just two little comments. 


caiTspeak^W^f ^ ^ 

can speak. We finish the voting first. 


VOTING 


“™ciently discusse< 


MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may we just have a 
clarification. I believe Commissioner Regalado already 
said that this does not mean that a law is a precondition 
for consultation to take place. Is that a correct inter- 
pretation? 

MR. REGALADO. That is precisely why the phrase 
used is “AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.” There 
may be no law, or the present situation will just be as i 
is. But if Congress sees it fit to make some qualifications 
later on, then this will not preempt Congress. Congre^ 
may even strengthen this consultative process an 
require adequate mechanisms for such a consultation. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is this clear now with the Com- 
mittee? Can we now read the whole Section 20? 

MR. GARCIA. Section 20, as amended, will read: 
“The State shall respect the right of the people and their 
organizations to effective and reasonable participation 
at all levels of social, political and economic decision- 
making, and shall make possible adequate consultation 
mechanisms AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.” 


VOTING 


“AS maT be proviSIy I ^ 

hand. ( Several Members raised their hand ) 


As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few 
Members raised their hand.) 


THE PRESIDENT. As many as are in favor of Section 
20, as amended, please raise their hand. (Several Mem- 
bers raised their hand.) 

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few 
Members raised their hand.) 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


151 


MR. GARCIA. Madam President, I would like to 
abstain. I would simply like to put on record that the 
phrase “AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW” substan- 
tially weakens the provision. 

THE PRESIDENT. May I just announce the result of 
the voting. 

The results show 30 votes m favor, 6 votes against 
and 1 abstention; Section 20 is approved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, may 1 just ask 
Commissioner Regalado one clariflcatory question? 

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed. 

MR. NOLLEDO. As I understand it, “AS MAY BE 
PROVIDED BY LAW” should refer only to the mechan- 
isms. 

MR. REGALADO. No, it refers to the entire partici- 
pation process. The law will provide how it will be done 
or how the participation will be. 

THE PRESIDENT. But it is not a precondition. In 
other words, it is not a requirement that there must be a 
law to provide for this. Is that clear, Commissioner 
Regalado? 

MR. REGALADO. Yes, Madam President. That is 
why I used “AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW” as 
distinguished from “AS DETERMINED BY LAW, 
because the latter is a precondition while the former is 
not. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Therefore, Congress cannot set 
forth limitations on the right. 

MR. REGALADO. Again? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Therefore, Congress cannot set 
forth limitations. 

MR. REGALADO. Congress can stand there; it cah 
strengthen, make more effective, amplify, supplement 
or qualify. 

MR. NOLLEDO. But not limit. 

MR. REGALADO. Why should we preempt Congress 
in its decision-making? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Nolledo, it says 
here “and shall make possible.” So, how can it retract 
or reduce? It shall make possible as may be provided by 
law. In other woras, the law will just provide the corre- 
sponding mechanism but it has to make possible all that 
has been stated here in this body. 


MR. NOLLEDO. I agree with the Chair. Thank you. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, Commissioner Ople 
has graciously withdrawn his last amendment. So, there 
are no more provisions or sections here to be voted on. 
But before I ask for the termination of the period of 
amendments, may I ask that we insert in the Record a 
speech of Commissioner Tingson, entitled; “Land Re- 
fonn. Pillar of Economic Recovery,” which is a com- 
ment and an observation on the section that we have. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) 
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.* 

Please furnish a copy to the Secretariat. 

MR. TINGSON. Yes, I will. Madam President. 

Thank you. 

THE PRESIDENT. So, are we through now with the 
Article on Social Justice? 

MR. RAMA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, before I move to ter- 
minate the period of amendments, I would like to 
register the reservation of Commissioner Jamir to amend 
Section 5 and Commissioner Foz’ to amend Section 1 1. 

With those reservations. Madam President, I move 
that we close the period of amendments on the Article 
on Social Justice. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? 

FR. BERNAS. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bemas is recog- 
nized. 

FR. BERNAS. I would also like to reserve an amend- 
ment on Section 20. That is the very last one. 

MR. RAMA. Commissioner Bemas would like to 
make a reservation on Section 20. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, just a small point. 

the PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog- 
nized. 

MR. MONSOD. I just want to make the manifestation 
that Commissioner de los Reyes was consulted in the 
drafting of the section on the rights of fish workers 
which included the phrase “service workers and other 


*See Appendix 


152 


SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986 


forms of contractual relationship.” That is just for 
purposes of drafting it, the styling. 

MR. RAMA. With those reservations, Madam Pres- 
ident, I move that we close the period of amendments 
on the Article on Social Justice. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) 
The Qiair hears none; the motion is approved. 


ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I move that we 
adjourn until Monday at nine-thirty in the morning. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is adjourned until 
Monday at nine-thirty in the morning. 

It was 1:36 p.m. 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


153 


R.C.C. NO. 53 
Monday, August 11, 1986 


OPENING OF SESSION 

At 9:43 a.m.f the President, the Honorable Cecilia 
Muhoz Palma, opened the session. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is called to order. 
NATIONAL ANTHEM 

THE PRESIDENT. Everybody will please rise to sing , 
the National Anthem. 

Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem. 


Chamber, O Lord, there are no foes, only colleagues in 
the common endeavor to structure the foundation of 
this nation. 

Guide us, Almighty God, in these, the final days, to 
make the Constitution we are drafting one that is ac- 
ceptable to our people but, more importantly, one that 
is deserving of Your blessing and benediction. Amen. 

ROLL CALL 

THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary-General will please 
call the roll. 


THE PRESIDENT. Everybody will please remain 
standing for the Prayer to be led by the Honorable 
Jose D. Calderon. 

Everybody remained standing for the Prayer. 

PRAYER 

MR. CALDERON. Let us pray. 

Almighty God, we are entering the final phase of our 
task to draft what will become the fundamental law of 
the Filipino people. 

The last two months had been hectic but the days 
ahead will be even more demanding. 

Even now, strenuous and sustained effort has taken 
its toll among those of us who are not in excellent 
health nor of robust physical attributes. 

But, Almighty God, the few of us who had been 
stricken ill are, by Your Grace, holding on tenaciously 
to the job at hand, pushed on by a determination and a 
purpose single to the completion of this endeavor, toge- 
ther with our more physically able colleagues. 

As our work mtensifies, as the demands on our 
efforts grow heavier, give us, O Lord, the strength to 
carry on. Reenergize our bodies; give more light to our 
minds; put more love in our hearts; and grant us more 
understanding and sympathy for those views that con- 
tradict our own. 

As crucial issues are submitted to a vote, fortify us. 
Almighty God, with humility in victory, with grace in 
defeat, and with the wisdom to understand that every 
vote cast in this Chamber is a vote of conscience in- 
tended to achieve the common weal and certainly not a 
partisan stand designed to defeat a foe, for in this 


THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading: 


Abubakar . . . . 

. . Present* 

Alonto 

. . Present 

Aquino 

. . Present* 

Azcuna 

. . Present 

Bacani 

. . Present 

Bengzon . ^. . . 

. . Present* 

Bennagen . . . . 

. Present 

Bernas 

. Present 

Rosario Braid . . 

. Present 

Brocka 

. Absent 

Calderon 

. Present 

Castro de . . . • 

. Present* 

Colayco 

. Present 

Concepcion . . . 

. Present* 

Davide 

. Present* 

Foz 

. Present 

Garcia 

. Present* 

Gascon 

. Present 

Guingona . . . . 

. Absent 

Jamir 

. Present 

Laurel 

. Present* 

Lerum 

. Present* 

Maambong . . . 

. Present* 

Monsod 

. Present* 


Natividad . . . 

. . Present* 

Nieva 


Nolledo .... 

. . Present 

Ople 


Padilla . / . . . 


Quesada .... 

. . Present 

Rama 

. . Present 

Regalado .... 


Reyes de los . 

. . Present* 

Rigos 


Rodrigo .... 

. . Present 

Romulo .... 


Rosales 


Sarmiento . . . 

. . Present 

Suarez 


Sumulong . . . 


Tadeo 


Tan 


Tingson .... 


Trefias 


Uka 


Villacorta . . . 


Villegas 



The President is present. 

The roll call shows 29 Members responded to the call. 


THE PRESIDENT. The Chair declares the presence of 
a quorum. 


MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that we 
dispense with the reading of the Journal of the previous 
session. 


‘Appeared after the roll call 


154 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection that we dis- 
pense with the reading of the Journal of the previous 
session? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is 
approved. 


APPROVAL OF JOURNAL 

MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that we 
approve the Journal of the previous session. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) 
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. 

MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that we 
proceed to the Reference of Business. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) 
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. 

The Secretary -General will read the Reference of 
Business. 


REFERENCE OF BUSINESS 

The Secretary-General read the following Com- 
munications, the President making the corresponding 
references: 


COMMUNICATIONS 

^tter from Mr. Teodoro Pascua of Konsiyensiya ng 
Febrero &ete (KONFES), 4 Malinis St.^ UP Village, 
1 man, Quezon City, submitting its proposal for the 
text of Section 8, Article XV of the 
Constitution regarding religious instruction in 
public elementary and high schools. 

~ Constitutional Commission 

of 1986) 

To the Committee on General Provisions. 

letter from Mr. Satumino C. Aro of 12-A Camp 
angwa. La Trinidad, Benguet, requesting inclusion of 
provisions on social security to make small member- 
employers beneficiaries by way of benefit payments in 
times of sickness, disability, retirement and death. 

514 - Constitutional Commission 

of 1986) 

Agencie^^”^”^'^^^^ Constitutional Commissions and 


utter from Mr. Jaime A. Tabang of 216 M.L. Quezt 
St, Maglhw, Mabalacat, Pampanga, seeking a cons 
tutional provismn that would, in effect, make the b 
exarnmees w,th borderline marks become members > 
the bar provided they have proven to be competent 
fields directly related to the legal profession 


(Communication No. 515 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 


To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and 
Agencies. 

Letter from Mr. Jaime A. Tabang of 216 M.L. Quezon 
St., Magiliw, Mabalacat, Pampanga, saying that civilian 
employees of the AFP remain “casuals” in spite of their 
civil service eligibilities and length of service and suggest- 
ing the inclusion of provisions providing equal treatment 
of all government employees regardless of the agency 
hiring them. 

(Communication No. 516 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Constitutional Commmissions and 
Agencies. 

Letter from Mr. Jose C. de Venecia, Jr., President of the 
Petroleum Association of the Philippines, Inc., 6th 
Floor Basic Petroleum Bldg., Alvarado St., Legaspi 
Village, Makati, Metro Manila, containing the position 
of the association on the exploration and development 
of petroleum resources of the Philippines. 
(Communication No. 5 1 7 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on the National Economy and 
Patrimony. 

Twenty-seven letters from John Gerard R. de Dios, 
Edwin F. Sarmiento, Eric S. Javier, Anmiel P. Galvo, 
Joselito Ledesma, Terry A. Lafigura, Rosario Torr^, 
William Intalco, Rojiel S. Lacanienta, Clifford 
Pesalbon, Joselito S. Agbayani, Romeo V. Paragas, 
Marlyn Sarmiento, Aurora R. Guiang, Francis G. Bais, 
Ramil T. Bruces, Ricky Paglicawan, Luis S. Salaz^, 
Margarita R. Mangaliman, Victor Maricad, Rolando . 
Nepomuceno, Jesus M. Pinlac, Marita Malpaya, Zenai a 
B. Viray, Reynaldo N. Regresado, Anselmo V. Contre- 
ras, and Ernesto C. Esteban, Jr. with their respective 
addresses, all seeking to include in the Constitution a 
provision obliging the State to protect the life of the 
unborn from the moment of conception. 

(Communication No. 518 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and 
Declaration of Principles. 

Resolution No. 6 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of 
Pampanga, requesting the Commission to respect the 
six-year term given by the people to the incumbent 
President and Vice-President. 

(Communication No. 519 - Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Amendments and Transitory 
Provisions. 

Communication from the Philippine Social Science 
Council, Inc., Don Mariano Marcos Avenue, UP 
Diliman, Quezon City, signed by its Chairman, Dr. Caro- 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


155 


lina G. Hernandez, submitting four recommendations, 
to wit: (1) federal form of government composed of 12 
autonomous regions; (2) equal rights of women with 
men and protection of working women in relation to 
their maternal functions; (3) deletion of the second 
sentence in the Article on Bill of Rights, Section 1 (the 
right to life extends to the fertilized ovum); (4) addition 
of a ninth ray to the sun of the Philippine flag to 
represent the Muslim and cultural communities. 

(Communication No. 520 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Steering Committee. 

Letter from Mr. Wilfredo C. Asuncion of Batac, Ilocos 
Norte, proposing, among others, a presidential form of 
government with a bicameral legislature, a six-year term 
for the President with no reelection, creation of a Com- 
mission on Appointments, and a four-year tenure for 
the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces. 

(Communication No. 521 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Steering Committee. 

Letter from Mr. Ricaredo G. Sodusta of Loreto, Agusan 
del Sur, transmitting Resolution No. 06, S. 1986 of the 
Sangguniang Bayan of Loreto, requesting the Constitu- 
tional Commission to create a Ministry for Tribal Fili- 
pinos that will cover all cultural minority tribes of the 
country. 

(Communication No. 522 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Human Resources. 

Communication from Imelda S. Dasalla of No. 1 1 7 
Block 2, New Matina, Davao City, and 84 others urging 
the Constitutional Commission to draft a Constitution 
for a Federal Republic of Pilipinas. 

(Communication No. 523 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Steering Committee. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. There is a request for a privilege speech 
for two minutes on the occasion of the birthday of 
former Senator Lorenzo Tanada. May I ask that Com-' 
missioner Villacorta be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villacorta is recog- 
nized. 

„ QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE 

OF COMMISSIONER VILLACORTA 

MR. VILLACORTA. Madam President, as we are 
about to approve the Article on Social Justice, the signi- 


ficance of the conferment of the highest government 
award, the Legion of Honor, Rank of Commander, to 
former Senator Lorenzo Martinez Tanada, should not 
pass unnoticed by the Constitutional Commission. 

Former Senator Tanada as we all know, is one of the 
greatest Filipinos of our time. Since the start of liis 
public career, he has fought for the small people of our 
society. Always championing basic human rights and 
national sovereignty, he has battled the forces of 
tyranny and foreign domination. 

Even as he has advanced to the age of 88, he has been 
unwavering in his social consciousness, his incorrupti- 
bility and his commitment to freedom and nationalism. 
Instead of stagnating in the premises and biases of his 
generation, he has always been attuned and responsive 
to the dynamic demands of changing times. 

Senator Tanada has often said, “Life is too short, we 
have to do our best for our people before we are sum- 
moned by our Creator and are made to account for our 
actions in our lifetime.” We are fortunate that in this 
Constitutional Commission, we can benefit from the 
parallel wisdom of his contemporaries in lawmaking: 
Senators Sumulong, Alonto, Rodrigo, Padilla and 
Rosales, and Speaker Laurel - statesmen of an era when 
the values of delicadeza and selflessness in public life 
prevailed. 

In our work in this Commission, we have endeavored 
to provide for the prevention of tyranny’s resurgence 
in our country. We have also striven to enshrine people’s 
power throu^ the institutionalization of sectoral rep- 
resentation and people’s organizations, and have sought 
to protect and guarantee the rights of laborers, farmers, 
fishermen, women, youth, the middle class, the sick and 
the disabled in our Article on Social Justice. Soon we 
shall deliberate on the matter of giving local govern- 
ments the importance that they deserve, and on articles 
that will set our people free from foreign economic, 
cultural and political encroachment. Let us draw our 
inspiration from the exemplary example of our great 
nationalist, Senator Lorenzo Tanada, who yesterday 
said that his only birthday wish is “to see our country 
truly liberated from foreign domination before I die.” 

Madam President, I would like, therefore, to exhort 
our colleagues in the Commission to support a resolu- 
tion that this Representation will submit, congratulat- 
ing Senator Taiiada for the highest state honor that he 
has just received. 

Thank you. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. I move that we take up for considera- 
tion Committee Report Nos. 21 and 25 on the Article 
on Local Governments, submitted by the Committee on 
Local Governments. 


156 


MONDAY, AUGUST 1 1, 1986 


THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection that we 
proceed to consider the reports of the Committee on 
Local Governments? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner NoUedo is recog- 
nized. 


MR. JAMIR. After the phrase “all agricultural lands,” 
I move to insert the words: EXCEPT COMMERCIAL, 
INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. 

THE PRESIDENT. In other words, before the clause 
“subject to such priorities.” 

MR. JAMIR. Yes, Madam President. 


MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, I thought we 
would proceed to finish the amendments to the report 
of the Committee on Social Justice before we take 
up Committee Report Nos. 21 and 25 because Com- 
missioner Ople, who is one of the sponsors, has not yet 
arrived. 


SUSPENSION OF SESSION 
THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended. 
It was 9:59 a.m. 


RESUMPTION OF SESSION 
At 10:09 a.m., the session was resumed. 


THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed. 


CONSIDERATION OF 
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 534 
(Article on Social Justice) 
Continuation 


period of amendments 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, the Committee on 
ocia Justice is now ready to entertain the motion for 
reconsideration. I ask that Commissioner Jamir be 
recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Jamir is recog- 
nized. 


MR. JAMIR. Thank you. Madam President. 

I move to reconsider the approval of the secon 
sentence of Section 5, appearing on page 2 of the drafi 

CTAT EXCEPT COMMEF 

RESIDENTIAL after th 
phrase all agncultural lands.” 

objection? (Silence 

The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. 
Commissioner Suarez is recognized 


MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, may we hear the 
proposed amendment again from the distinguished 
Gentleman? 


THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say? 

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, we realize the merit 
of the proposal, but this has been repeatedly stated in 
the explanation given by the members of the Commit- 
tee, so we would rather that we leave this matter to the 
floor for appreciation. 

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DAVIDE. Will the distinguished proponent yield 
to some clarificatory questions so we can vote intelli- 
gently? 

MR. JAMIR. Willingly. 

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed. 

MR. DAVIDE. Under the proposed Article on the 
National Economy and Patrimony, land should be classi- 
fied into timber, mineral, national park, and agricul- 
tural. If this particular proposal is adopted, all lands 
may further be classified into residential, commercial, 
agricultural and so on. 

MR. JAMIR. The term “COMMERCIAL, INDUS- 
TRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LANDS” is merely part of 
the broader term “agricultural lands.” 

MR. DAVIDE. Consequently, Congress now may 
classify “all agricultural lands” as residential, commer- 
cial and so on, or the bigger portion of the agricultural 
land as commercial or residential, to defeat the pur- 
pose of the concept of agrarian land reform. 


MR. JAMIR. No, Madam President. This is preceded 
by the word EXCEPT. That means to say that with 
regard to the broad term “agricultural lands,” these are 
the only exceptions. 

MR. DAVIDE. Yes. But Congress may now classify 
what are agricultural, residential and commercial lands, 
thus reducing the area or the coverage of agricultural 
lands and what may be available for land reform. 

MR. JAMIR. I do not really think so. 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


157 


MR. DAVIDE. We submit that it might dilute further 
the concept ofland reform. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, may I ask that Com- 
missioner Bernas be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bernas is recog- 
nized. 

FR. BERNAS. Will the proponent entertain a few 
questions? 

MR. JAMIR. Willingly. 

FR. BERNAS. In proposing to exempt agricultural, 
commercial and residential lands, would that not affect 
the intent of the fonner Section 11, which is now 
Section 10, on urban land use? In the course of our 
deliberations on this section on urban land reform 
and housing, we deliberately used the word “reform” 
and not “use” so that it would involve not merely 
zoning. It was very clear that the intent was to make 
possible the expropriation of urban land, residential 
land and even commercial land for purposes of distribu- 
tion and resale. If we exempt commercial and residential 
lands from distribution under Section 5, in effect, we 
negate the possibility of urban land reform. 

MR. JAMIR. My purpose in introducing that amend- 
ment is merely to clarify that, under existing laws and 
our jurisprudence, these three kinds of agricultural lands 
really form part of the agricultural lands but they are 
considered an exception to that broader term. 

FR. BERNAS. But, precisely, the intention of the 
Article on Social Justice is to go beyond existing law. 
And now, the purpose of the Gentleman’s amendment is 
to fossilize the existing law, and thereby render impossi- 
ble the fulfillment of the goals of urban land reform. 

MR. JAMIR. That was not the intention. In fact, if I 
remember correctly, during the interpellation, when I 
was attempting to insert the word “ARABLE” between 
the words “all” and “agriculture,” the Committee stated 
that commercial, industrial and residential lands are not 
really included. I would like to clarify that. 

FR. BERNAS. That, of course, is correct. But then 
subsequent to that we considered urban land reform. 
The proper consideration of commercial and residential 
lands should be perhaps under urban land reform and 
housing. 

MR. JAMIR. It is far beyond my intention to limit 
the coverage of agrarian land reform. 

FR. BERNAS. It may not be the intention, Madam 
President, but it is the effect. 


MR. JAMIR. I really do not think so, because at any 
rate, our laws and jurisprudence already have instituted 
these as parts merely of agricultural lands. 

FR. BERNAS. Madam President, it is still my conten- 
tion that the introduction of that amendment will 
seriously impair, if not negate, the possibility of urban 
land reform and housing reform. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any other comment? 

MR. JAMIR. Madam President, I suggest that we 
submit it to a vote. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Sarmiento is recog- 
nized. 

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, this Com- 
mission has been castigated by various farmer groups for 
instituting a weak agrarian reform program. The Federa- 
tion of Free Farmers and other nationwide peasant 
groups have issued statements criticizing this Com- 
mission for instituting a weak and flabby agrarian 
reform program. Madam President, now we are in- 
troducing another amendment to further weaken the 
agrarian reform. A few days ago, we instituted amend- 
ments that tend to weaken agrarian reform with pro- 
visions like “the State shall by law”; “subject to such 
priorities and reasonable retention limits as Congress 
may prescribe”; the proviso “taking into account eco- 
logical, developmental or equity consideration”; and 
“just compensation.” 

Madam President, to me this is another attempt to 
weaken agrarian reform. We will be increasing the 
sorrow and the sadness of our farmers, of our people, 
if we accept this amendment. With due respect to 
Commissioner Jamir, I object to the introduction of 
that amendment. 

MR. PADILLA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Padilla is recog- 
nized. 

MR. PADILLA. The proposed amendment submitted 
by Commissioner Jamir has reference to Section 5 under 
agrarian land reform. The proposed amendment does 
not refer to Section 10 or 11 under Urban Land Use 
and Housing Program, so they are two distinct sections. 
For Commissioner Bernas to say that Commissioner 
Jamir’s insertion in Section 5 will affect the provision 
on urban land use and housing is not exactly accurate 
because the proposed amendment is on Section 5 and 
not on Section 10 or 11. With regard to the provi- 
sion that says “encourage and undertake the just dis- 
tribution of all agricultural lands,” I recall that I 
suggested the elimination of the word “all” and Com- 


158 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


missioner Jamir suggested to make it applicable to 
“ARABLE” agricultural lands. These proposals were 
unfortunately not approved. But definitely this sub- 
classification of agricultural land to residential, com- 
mercial and industrial is not or should not be covered 
by agrarian land reform. 

So I am in favor of the proposed amendment of 
Commissioner Jamir. 


allowed to remain commercial for commercial pur- 
poses, industrial for industrial purposes, and residential 
for residential purposes. That is my contention. 

MR. VILLEGAS. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villegas is recog- 
nized. 


MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de los Reyes is 
recognized. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. May I just inform the honor- 
able Commission that under Article XIV, Section 10 of 
the 1973 Constitution, lands of the public domain are 
clarified into agricultural, industrial or commercial, 
residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or forest and 
grazing lands, and such other classes as may be pro- 
vided by law. Unless the intention of the Committee 
on the Nation^ Economy and Patrimony is to do away 
with this classification which I think is a good classifica- 
tion, then there should be no question about the 
^endment being proposed by Commissioner Jamir 
because it is so classified under the 1973 Constitution. 

Tffi PRESIDENT. Commissioner Aquino is recog- 
nized. 


MS. AQUINO. Thank you. Madam President. 
Will the proponent yield to some questions? 

MR. JAMIR. Willingly. 


MS. AQUINO. Madam President, there is settled 
junsprudence on the definition of “agricultural land” 
in the case of Krivenco vs. the Register of Deeds that 
would define agricultural land to include commercial, 
industrial and residential lands. My concern is in the 
absence of settled jurisprudence delimiting the para- 
meters of what are commercial, industrial and 
residential lands which, in effect, would get in the way 
of the effective implementation of Sections 5 and 1 1 . 


For the enlightenment of the Committee, what d 
Commissioner Jamir intend to cover by reference 
commercial, industrial and residential lands, if only 
se e parameters of these concepts and classificati 
would be, in effect, granting to Congi 

^ statutory authority to set tl 

own clysification m the absence of guidance fr 
junsprudence and the law 


MR. JAMIR. I know that commercial, industrial and 
residentid lands are included in the broad term “agri- 
cultural lands, but considering the particular character 
of these parcels of land, they should not be included in 
the land subject to agrarian reform. They should be 


MR. VILLEGAS. Madam President, in answer to the 
question asked by Commissioner de los Reyes, it is the 
intent of the Committee on the National Economy and 
Patrimony to remove many of the categories that were 
mentioned in the 1973 Constitution. As I reported on 
another occasion, our recommendation in the commit- 
tee report is to have only four classifications; namely, 
mineral, timber, agricultural, and if the body approves 
it, the new classification of national parks. The back- 
ground behind this recommendation is that in the last 
regime, the government was very free in reclassifying 
all types of agricultural lands into residential and 
resettlement, and we felt that we should limit that 
ability of Congress or the executive. I would really be 
hesitant to introduce that exception because there are 
a lot of rural areas right now where we can actually have 
industrial and residential and commercial activities. I 
think we should just depend on the wisdom of Confess 
to consider “developmental or equity considerations” so 
that we need not completely tie the hands of the 
government in considering some rural areas that can be 
subject to land reform even if some people may want to 
introduce land reform in specific rural sites. 

I do object to the amendment. I think it will unduly 
limit the ability of the government to introduce land 
reform in specific rural sites. 


MR. RAMA. Madam President, 
missioner Bengzon be recognized. 


I ask that Com- 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bengzon is recog- 
nized. 


MR. BENGZON. Madam President, I am a member of 
the Committee and I would like to state here what the 
intent of the Committee was when it proposed the 
urban land reform and housing and agrarian land 
reform. When we discussed this provision on urban land 
reform and housing, what we had in mind were the 
urban poor - people who have no houses, who are land- 
less, who are not professional squatters, but are squat- 
ting on idle lands in the city, who have been there for 
many years, and people who have gotten into these idle 
lands, paying certain nominal amounts to the land- 
owners. We were not thinking of the office spaces, for 
example, in Makati. 

I appreciate the concern of Commissioner Jamir and I 
understand that what he has in mind and his apprehen- 
sion is that this might cover lands which are definitely 
and publicly known to be office spaces or commercial 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


159 


spaces. However, that apprehension is already eased by 
the last portion of Section 5 which has given Congress 
the prerogative to prescribe certain terms, taking into 
account the ecological, developmental and equity con- 
siderations when it passes laws on agrarian reform and 
urban reform. And, therefore, in order not to comph- 
cate the matter further, considering that the appre- 
hension of Commissioner Jamir is taken care of by the 
last portion of Section 5, and reading into the record 
the intent of the Committee when it proposed the 
section on urban land refonn and housing to the effect 
that it was really the intention not to cover these office 
spaces and industrial sites but those lands which are in 
the cities and in the urban areas which are idle, which 
could properly be expropriated by the government for 
tenement housing, then we believe. Madam President, 
that there is no need for that amendment. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there has been suffi- 
cient debate and discussion of the proposed amend- 
ment. 

THE PRESIDENT. May we know from Commissioner 
Jamir if he insists on his amendment so that we can 
determine, if he will submit it to a vote. 

MR. JAMIR. Yes, Madam President. I wish to submit 
it to a vote. 

Mr. SARMIENTO. Madam President, before we vote 
on the issue, may I just ask the Committee one clarifica- 
tory question. 

the PRESIDENT. Please proceed. 

MR. SARMIENTO. A few seconds ago. Commissioner 
Bengzon stated that industrial sites are exempted from 
the scope of urban land reform. May I know if it is the 
intention of the Committee for the urban land reform 
to cover only idle lands in the city? 

SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended for a few 
minutes. 

Jt was 10:30 a.m. 

RESUMPTION OF SESSION 

At 10:36 a.m., the session was resumed. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed. 

The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, Commissioner Colay- 
co would like to have the last say on the proposed 
amendment. 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Colayco is recog- 
nized. 

MR. COLAYCO. Thank you. Madam President. 

According to Commissioner Bengzon, the Committee 
understands or agrees that areas devoted to commercial 
or industrial purposes are not to be included in the 
agrarian and urban reform. Am I correct? 

MR. BENGZON. Yes. Areas which are already being 
used for commercial and industrial sites are not included 
in this definition because the intent of the Committee 
was to. take care of the urban poor, the homeless. For 
example, if there is a specific area already devoted to 
industrial purposes and with factories all around, but 
within that cluster of factories there is a vacant land, it 
is up to Congress now to determine whether for the 
interest of the community that land should be expro- 
priated wherein a tenement housing will be built for the 
workers around. 

MR. COLAYCO. Thank you. 

So, what is wrong with clarifying that point? 

MR. BENGZON. Madam President, we will get into 
a lot of complications because there will be a million 
and one situations like that. 

MR. COLAYCO. There will be more complications, if 
we do not clarify this point. 

MR. BENGZON. Congress has the right to reclassify 
those lands as the circumstances would warrant. We 
cannot put all of those restrictions here. 

MR COLAYCO. There is just this problem - there 
may be a situation where an industrial or commercial 
area is not being used at the moment. This can be a big 
problem if Congress now declares such an area as 
residential or for urban housing. 

MR. bengzon. Then if Congress declares so, that 
means that it is for the best interest of everybody con- 
cerned, and it is not for us here to tell them what to do. 

MR. COLAYCO. I have another question. There are 
many vacant residential areas around the elite enclaves, 
the subdivisions in Metro Manila. Take the case of the 
Ortigas property which is supposed to have been taken 
over by the Marcoses. There was a time when there were 
many squatters in that area. Does the Committee envi- 
sion the expropriation of similar areas for housing for 
the poor? 

MR. bengzon. We do not envision any situation of 
that sort. We are leaving it precisely to Congress to 
determine whether or not, given that particular situa- 
tion, it would enhance the value of that land or the 


160 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


interest of the squatters to stay in that particular area. 
That is why I am saying that we leave the discretion to 
Congress to decide what is best for the community as a 
whole, both for the people who would want to squat 
there and cut up that piece of land into small pieces for 
themselves, and for the people who are already living 
around that community. It is not up for us to dictate to 
them what to do nor to envision every single situation. 
That is why we “are leaving the matter to Congress.” 
We feel that if we do include all the proposals of Com- 
missioner Jamir here, we are complicating the situation 
further. The more we define, the more we limit, and 
the more we tie the hands of Congress. 

MR. COLAYCO. Thank you for the Gentleman’s 
view. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, the body is ready to 
vote on the proposed amendment. 


Committee feels that there is no necessity for tlic in- 
clusion of the three items mentioned by the proponent. 
However, if the Gentleman insists, we will leave it to the 
body to appreciate and evaluate the situation. 

MR. JAMIR. Madam President, may 1 say one word? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Jamir is recog- 
nized. 

MR. JAMIR. In view of the statement of Com- 
missioner Suarez, may I just ask him, if I withdraw this 
amendment, whether his explanation given during the 
interpellation the other time on my proposal to add the 
word “arable” is the Committee’s stand on the matter? 
If the Gentleman would like to recall, he stated that the 
term “commercial, industrial and residential lands” is 
not included under agricultural lands. 


THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Villegas want 
to seek recognition? 

MR. VILLEGAS. I just wanted to add some informa- 
tion that would allay the fears expressed by Com- 
missioner Colayco. 

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed. 


MR. SUAREZ. Essentially, the characteristic of arabi- 
lity is the controlling factor, insofar as the classification 
of agrarian reform on agricultural lands is concerned. 

MR. JAMIR. So, that explanation of the Gentleman 
will stand; in that event, Madam President, I withdraw 
the motion. 


^^LLEGAS. Let us take, for example, that ver> 
specific case of the Ortigas land. It would be highl> 
niikely for Congress to consider the area for urban lane 

S nno price of that land is more thar 

’ .f. square meter. And because we have a ver\ 
about just compensation, it woulc 
rioht • government to choose a property 

hflv ^ rniddle of the Ortigas area. I think we wil 
e o put all these provisions in the context of wha 
7h' V ^PP^cd — just compensation. So, I do no 
in ere is reason to be apprehensive, assuming tha 
»^ongress really represents the people. We should havi 
enough confidence in our government officials. 

THE PRESIDENT. We are ready to vote now. 

MR. RAMA. The Committee would like to state it 
position. 

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, 
nized^ Pf^ESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recog 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you, Madam President. 

In view of the many explanations given on recor 
■"‘''Pretation ot the word “agricultun 
lands m relation to commercial, industrial and res 
dentia lands and, further, i„ relation to the imph 
mentation of the urban land reform program of th 
government together with the agrarian reform, th 


MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. 

THE PRESIDENT. The proposed amendment is with- 
drawn. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Com- 
missioner Foz be recognized for another amendment. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Foz is recognized. 

MR. FOZ. Madam President, before I actually state 
my proposed amendment, I would like to make some 
statements in response to certain statements expressed 
in some quarters. I wish to respond to the statements 
expressing fears and misgivings over the consequences of 
our provision on urban land reform which we have 
approved as part of the Article on Social Justice and 
which the government is called upon to carry out when 
the new Constitution is approved. These fears and ap- 
prehensions, I submit, arise from a lack of appreciation 
of the proper role of an urban land reform program. 

The objectives of an urban land program, as I have 
mentioned them before, are to liberate our human 
communities from blight, congestion and hazard, and to 
promote their development and modernization to bring 
about the optimum use of land as a rational resource for 
public welfare, rather than as a commodity of trade 
subject to price speculation and indiscriminate use; and 
to acquire lands necessary to prevent the speculative 
buying of land for public welfare; and to enlist the sup- 
port of the private sector in responding to community 
requirements in the use and development of urban lands 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


161 


and in providing housing for the people. The foremost 
concern then is the problem of blighted, congested 
urban areas or communities. Our provision precisely 
states that it is a program of urban land reform and 
housing, aimed at making available affordable housing 
and basic services to the underprivileged and homeless 
citizens. 

The fear has been expressed by small landowners 
or small property owners, who have two-door or more 
apartments being rented out to tenants, that the govern- 
ment would take over their property. This concern is 
not new because time and again, small apartment 
owners who, by the way, are numerous have been 
voicing the same fear but I say that there is no ground 
for such fear. The government will certainly be con- 
cerned with the big estates and properties in urban 
centers; and under well-developed jurispmdence, the 
State is to be limited to this type of land insofar as 
government expropriation of land is concerned. 

If we have provided in the provision on agrarian 
reform an assurance to the srhall landowners that the 
State shall respect their rights in determining the reten- 
tion limits of agricultural lands, should we not likewise 
provide even a short provision in the case of small urban 
landowners that their rights shall also be respected and 
protected by the State? These small landowners or 
property owners may be said to belong to the middle 
class of our urban centers. They are retirees, veterans, 
teachers, employees, who have used their lifetime 
savings or have borrowed from banks small loans to 
build houses or even small apartments, a portion of 
which they have rented out to some other people so 
that they can derive some income when they retire 
or even during their retirement. 

Therefore, Madam President, I propose that we add 
to Section 1 1 , which we have already approved, a new 
sentence to read as follows: THE STATE SHALL 
respect THE RIGHTS OF SMALL PROPERTY 
OWNERS. This amendment is coauthored by Com- 
missioners Monsod and Trenas. By the way, this has 
. already been cleared with the Committee. 

THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say? 

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, may we just clarify 
two points: When the Gentleman mentioned property 
owners, was he referring to owners of lots and houses or 
only to lots? 

MR. FOZ. Both. 

MR. SUAREZ. And would the Gentleman leave to 
Congress, as we did in applying the provisions on 
agrarian reform, the determination of what would 
constitute a small property owner? 


The Committee accepts the proposed amendment. 
Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Committee accepts. 

MR. SUAREZ. Yes, Madam President. 

MR. VILLEGAS. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villegas is recog- 
nized. 


MR. VILLEGAS. Could I just propose an amendment 
to the amendment. Since property is too general, could 
we introduce an adjective and say: “REAL ESTATE 
PROPERTY OWNERS”? 

THE PRESIDENT. What does Commissioner Foz or 
the Committee say? 

MR. FOZ. I think there is no difference. Actually, it 
is a little redundant to say “SMALL REAL ESTATE 
PROPERTY OWNERS” here. 

MPv. SUAREZ. Would Commissioner Villegas state 
the proposed amendment to the amendment? 


MR. VILLEGAS. “THE STATE SHALL RESPECT 
THE RIGHTS OF SMALL REAL ESTATE PROPERTY 
OWNERS.” 

MR. SUAREZ. Would the word “PROPERTY” not 
be included in the words “REAL ESTATE”? 

MR. VILLEGAS. No. 


MR. SUAREZ. It is the other way around. 
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes. 


MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. 


MR. MONSOD. This sentence is proposed to be in- 
cluded in the same section defining the rights of fanners 
to urban land reform and housing. So in that context 
it would only refer to real property. 

MR. VILLEGAS. I will not insist on the amendment. 

THE PRESIDENT. Will the Gentleman now restate 
the proposed amendment so that we can proceed to 
vote. 


sentence: “THE STATE 
SHALL RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF SMALL PRO- 
PERTY OWNERS ” 


MR. FOZ. That is right. 
MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. 


MR. SUAREZ. We reiterate the Committee accepts 
the proposed amendment. 


162 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this pro- 
posed amendment which has been accepted by the 
Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amend- 
ment is approved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I move that we take a 
vote on the entire Section 1 1 . 


After consultation with the Committee and also with 
Commissioner Regalado who sponsored the last amend- 
ment, we agreed that this formulation reflects the 
intention of everyone. 

MR. GASCON. Commissioner Bemas, is it not “THE 
STATE SHALL, BY LAW, FACILITATE”? 


THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Are we through with aU the 
reservations? Have we taken up aU the reserved amend- 
ments? 

MR. SUAREZ. One more reservation. Madam Pres- 
ident. 

THE PRESIDENT. Can we take that up now? 

MR. RAMA. We can take it up now. May I ask that 
Commissioner Bemas be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bemas is recog- 
nized. 


FR. BERNAS. Madam President, I call the attentioi 
of the Commission to the third paragraph, page 38 o: 
e oumal last Saturday. The amendment I am abou 
o propose is in effect cosponsored by Commissioner; 

’ Garcia and also Commissioner Regalado whc 
gave the last amendment to this provision last Saturday 

j amendment, let me just give th( 

nou of what I am about to propose. In the inter 

it uf ^^de by Commissioner Rodrigo last Saturday 
thic ^ ^ was not the intention o; 

dilute or diminish the right; 
Wtir.^ ^aranteed in the Bill of Rights, particularly 
DPoni f Section 9, which guarantee the right: o 
rnnf ^ ^®^®ci3tions and unions for purposes no 

nr> 1 the guarantee which says tha 

^ passed abridging the right of the peoph 

roa f assemble and petition the government fo: 
redress of gnevances. 

thieve object of my proposal is precisely to rephras< 
alrpnHw diminishing what w( 

DToiert same time it will more clearly 

a we hope to add in this provision. 

sp^tin^TthT^*^^ parts. The first involves i 

of both Darts “ito two, and then a rewordini 

this way: THE RIGHT OF THE^^^ 4Nn thf» 
BLE PARtIci'patION AND REASONA 

TR PATTON OF FACILITATE THl 

CREATION OF ADEQUATE CONSUI TATTOT' 
MECHANISMS. DN8ULTATIOI 


FR. BERNAS. “THE STATE SHALL, BY LAW, 
FACILITATE THE CREATION OF ADEQUATE 
CONSULTATION MECHANISMS.” 

We would like to avoid the use of the words “make 
possible” because it gives the impression that these 
consultation mechanisms are not possible unless the 
State takes action by law. As a matter of fact, these 
consultation mechanisms are already in existence, and 
the role we are giving to the State is mere facilitation, 
not necessarily creation of these consultation mechan- 
isms. 

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recog- 
nized. 

MR. SUAREZ. Since the proposed amendments 
would be reflective of the thinking of the Committee, 
the Committee decides to accept the proposals. Madam 
President. 

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DAVIDE. I would like to have some clarifica- 
tions. 

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed. 

MR. DAVIDE. The emphasis of my question will be 
on “THEIR ORGANIZATIONS” - “THEIR ORGANI- 
ZATIONS” would refer specifically to independent 
people’s organizations as defined in the preceding sen- 
tence. 


FR. BERNAS. Yes. 

MR. DAVIDE. Would the Gentleman agree to using 
the word ESTABLISHMENT instead of “CREATION”? 

FR. BERNAS. That is with respect to the second 

sentence. 

MR. DAVIDE. Yes, to the second sentence. 

FR. BERNAS. The sense is the same; I would have no 
difficulty with that. 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11,1 986 


163 


MR. DAVIDE. Thank you. 

FR. BERNAS. But for me the more important word 
is FACILITATE. 

MR. SUAREZ. Is Commissioner Bemas accepting the 
amendment? 

MR. MONSOD. May I just ask a question of the 
proponent, Madam President. 

Would it change the sense of the sentence if we 
simply say, “THE STATE SHALL FACILITATE 
ADEQUATE CONSULTATION MECHANISMS” with- 
out having to say “CREATION OR ESTABLISH- 
MENT”? 

FR. BERNAS. First of all, the phrase is “THE 
STATE SHALL, BY LAW.” 

MR. MONSOD. “THE STATE SHALL, BY LAW, 
FACILITATE ADEQUATE CQNSULTATIQN ME- 
CHANISMS.” Do we need the word “CREATION” 
there? 

FR. BERNAS. There are really two steps. First, we 
have the creation of the consultation mechanisms, and 
then the facilitation of the functioning of those me- 
chanisms. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is this a new section or substitu- 
tion for a section? 

FR. BERNAS. A substitution for Section 20, Madam 
President. So, the first sentence will read: THE RIGHT 
OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS TO 
effective AND REASONABLE PARTICIPATION 
at ALL LEVELS OF SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND 
economic DECISION-MAKING SHALL NOT BE 

abridged. 

Could we take action on that? 

THE PRESIDENT. There are two sentences. 

FR. BERNAS. There is a second sentence. Madam 
President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is this clear to all the Com- 
missioners? 

MR. OPLE. Madam President. 

the PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized. 

MR. OPLE. Thank you. 

I am for this amendment which I think better reflects 
the intent of the entire Commission, if I may say so. But 
for purposes of the records, we should clarify the mean- 
ing of the word ‘PEOPLE.” Do we refer to the people as 


the source of sovereignty from which all sovereignty 
emanates? 

FR. BERNAS. Precisely, yes. 

MR. OPLE. I think in the usual construction, the 
people in this case constitute themselves into an elec- 
torate for the purpose of electing a government to pass 
policy questions through their representatives in, let us 
say, the legislature. But in this case we refer to people 
and their organizations. Is there no distinction at all 
between the “people” contemplated in the earlier 
definition that I gave from which all sovereignty 
emanates and the people here as, let us say, the 
“people” as a great public? 

FR. BERNAS. The people are larger than just merely 
the electorate because the electorate consists of those 
who are qualified to vote. The broader word PEOPLE 
would include even those who are under age, and the 
guarantee in the Bill of Rights covers all people. 

MR. OPLE. We are speaking, therefore, of people in 
the more generic sense. Perhaps, the classic formulation 
of that was what Walter Lippman put forth as a “nation- 
al society” consisting of generations present, past and 
future, as well. 

FR. BERNAS. Yes; and that adequately defines the 
section on the declaration of principles when we speak 
of sovereignty residing in the people. 

MR. OPLE. In empowering people’s organizations to 
participate in all levels of decision-making, this pre- 
sumably rises vertically from, let us say, the barangay 
level to the regional level and to the national level. 

FR. BERNAS. We are not putting any limitation. 

MR. OPLE. I just wanted to make this clarification. 

Thank you very much. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Are we now ready to vote? 

MR. ROMULO. Madam President, before we vote, 
I would like to ask the Committee a question. 

the president. Please proceed. 

MR. ROMULO. Since this now has been reformulated, 
I would like to ask, in the event the people’s organiza- 
tion is not consulted, what the effect of that noncon- 
sultation with regard to either the decision made by the 
bureaucrats or the law passed by Congress would be. 

MR. GARCIA. The Committee feels that in any 
decision-making that will be relevant, the thoughts, the 
aspirations and the participation of people are essential 
for the decision-making to be in the right direction. 


164 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


MR. ROMULO. Granted, but suppose they are not 
consulted? 

MR. GARCIA. Yes, we always say that consultation 
mechanisms be reasonable because one cannot consult 
every single individual on a specific question. But the 
effort of decision-makers or of government leaders 
should be to consult the people, whenever it is possible. 

MR. ROMULO. Yes. Assuming that they do not, I 
just want to know what is the effect of nonconsultation. 

MR. GARCIA. Then they must suffer the conse- 
quences. When the people later on believe that the 
decisions made without proper consultation are con- 
trary to their interests, then they may be voted out of 
office. 

MR. ROMULO. So, it does not nullify the law or it 
does not make the decision nonenforceable. 


MR. MONSOD. Madam President, this section does 
not say that any group who claims to be a people’s 
organization must be consulted for a law or decision to 
be valid or implemented. As I think Commissioner 
Garcia said, there is the criteria of practicability as well. 
Furthermore, in our Constitution, we also gave the 
people the right of initiative and referendum., 

MR. ROMULO. Precisely. 

MR. MONSOD. So, this is another way by which they 
can express their disapproval of any decision or law. 

MR. ROMULO. So, what the Gentleman is saying is 
that this is a desired objective and if it is not fulfilled 
then the people must go to those mechanisms provided 
in our Constitution. 

MR. MONSOD. Yes, the operative phrase is “WITHIN 
THE DEMOCRATIC FRAMEWORK.” 


MR. GARCIA. Exactly. There are many levels on the 
^enas of participation. It can be electoral. It can be, as 
m the past when we saw street manifestations, in the 
orm of demonstrations. And right now, in many parts 
u ij ® especially during the public hearings, we 

• + people. In fact, such has been 

instituted m the different ministries as I informed you 


MR. ROMULO. Thank you. 

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, may I ask a few 
questions? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog- 
nized. 


soe^if second question is, since we 

nni*f* 1 u levels of participation, not only 

economic and so on, to what extent 
is apply in the ladder of decision-making? 

The desired objective is for people on 
ai ton, ^ level, regional level and nation- 

. ^ ® consulted so that there will be an effective 

we can check whether the decisions 
needs are relevant and responsive to people’s 

ROMULO. So, if we take an agency of the 
g emment, let us say a ministry on the national level, 
require that the people be consulted from the 
om o top of that ladder of decision-making? 

for example, national 
pxatTmiA Tu^ XM- ■ ''^ouid hke to give a very concrete 

ducted a consuSuolTwith 
tions composed of healTh 1 c 

and so on on th« !• 'workers, consumers, doctors, 
decisions to hp • ^^/^onal level. And later on, for the 

further and refmeT ttMe'"There‘''° Ministry discussed 
fte local and municipal 

The level may be vertical on that score - geographical 
or horizontal when it involves different sectors of 
society, multisectoral or sectoral. 


MR. RODRIGO. The phrase “WITHIN THE DE- 
MOCRATIC-FRAMEWORK” is a little too general. In 
our Declaration of Principles, we state that our govern- 
ment is a republican government, which means a rep- 
resentative government wherein sovereignty resides in 
the people; but then the people elect their representa- 
tives to the legislature, to the executive department, 
and these representatives are the ones who perform the 
functions of government. We would like the people to 
have some reserve powers as was stated by Com- 
missioner Monsod. We are providing for initiative, for 
referendum, even for recall. And now, we are providing 
in this proposed section another direct participation of 
the people. What is the meaning of this “participation”? 
It seems that this “participation” should not be initiated 
by the government, but by the people themselves or by 
organizations. If the organizations want to participate, 
they should not wait for the government, let us say, for 
the legislature, to invite them or to consult them. 

MR. GARCIA. We agree. 

MR. RODRIGO. So, the legislative department does 
not have the duty to call them and say, “please come, 
we want to consult you.” If the people do not go there 
and express their views . . . 

MR. GARCIA. Precisely, when we were explaining 
the role and rights of people’s organizations, we are say- 
ing that it will be the people, their organizations, which 


MONDAY, AUGUST 1 1 , 1 986 


165 


are involved. They should not see their participation in 
government stopping when they cast their vote; it goes 
beyond electoral politics. The only thing we are asking 
for in this section is to facilitate a consultation mechan- 
ism so that there is a more recognized effort, a more 
visible and viable effort, so that this consultation 
mechanism is institutionalized. 

MR. RODRIGO. So, it is very, very clear that we do 
not want to depart from a republican form of govern- 
ment, which means a representative form of govern- 
ment. We want more people participation and the 
participation should come from the people. 

MR. GARCIA. Exactly. In fact, it strengthens the 
democratic exercise. 

MR. RODRIGO. Thank you. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog- 
nized. 

MR. BENNAGEN. I would like to strengthen the 
position of Commissioner Garcia and Commissioner 
Monsod with respect to the framework within which 
people’s organizations participate. In addition to the 
democratic framework, we are saying that it is in the 
pursuit of social justice. That is why we were insistent on 
the original formulation that the provision on people’s 
organizations should start with the introduction, “In the 
pursuit of Social Justice within the democratic frame- 
work,” so that we get out of the framework of party 
politics. It is not just within the framework of party 
politics that people’s organizations can participate. We 
have had a number of experiences where people’s or- 
ganizations have already been participating at various 
levels. A concrete example would be the construction 
of huge infrastructure projects like dams. It has been 
the case that some form of consultation takes place but 
in the final implementation of these programs, the con- 
sultations are not conducted. We are saying that the 
people should be able to initiate from the lowest, as it 
were, up to the highest level, if necessary, so their 
voices will be heard effectively. 

Again based on our experiences, in a number of cases, 
there is lack of adequate information. Information is 
never provided for the people on which to base their 
judgment on these infrastructure projects. We are also 
saying, therefore, that given this framework, social 
justice and the democratic values could be pursued, 
people s participation could be more effective, and the 
role of government here would be to facilitate that form 
of consultation outside of party politics. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, Commissioner Bernas 
would like to have his last say on this. 


FR. BERNAS. No, I was asking for a vote. But if the 
Chair wishes, I can restate the amendment. 

THE PRESIDENT. Are we ready to vote? 

MR. RAMA. Tlie body is ready to vote. 

THE PRESIDENT. Will the Committe please read the 
section now? 

MR. SUAREZ. We yield to Commissioner Bernas, 
Madam President. 

FR. BERNAS. The section will read: “THE RIGHT 
OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS TO 
EFFECTIVE AND REASONABLE PARTICIPATION 
AT ALL LEVELS OF SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND 
ECONOMIC DECISION-MAKING SHALL NOT BE 
ABRIDGED. THE STATE SHALL, BY LAW, FACILI- 
TATE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ADEQUATE 
CONSULTATION MECHANISMS.” 


VOTING 

THE PRESIDENT. As many as are in favor of the 
amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members 
raised their hand.) 

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No 
Member raised his hand.) 

The results show 25 votes in favor and none against; 
the amendment is approved. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I move that we vote 
on the whole Article on Social Justice, as suggested by 
one of the committee members. 

THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Floor Leader, have all those 
reserved amendments been submitted already? 

MR. RAMA. Yes, Madam President. There are no 
more reserved amendments. 

MR. MONSOD. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog- 
nized. 

MR. MONSOD. May we request that we first dis- 
tribute to the Commissioners a clean copy of the 
Article before we vote on Second Reading? 


SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

THE PRESIDENT. So, we wiU vote on it later as soon 
as we have a clean copy of the entire Article on Social 
Justice with all the amendments that have been ap- 
proved. 


166 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


Meanwhile, the Giair suspends the session for a few 
minutes. 

It was 11:15 a.m. 

RESUMPTION OF SESSION 
At 11:50 a.m., the session was resumed. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President. 


RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE 
NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON LOCAL 
GOVERNMENTS, 

and Proposed Resolution No. 511, entitled: 

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTI- 
TUTION ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS IN THE ARTICLE 
ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. 


(The following is the whole text of the proposed resolutions 
per C.R. Nos. 21 and 25.) 


THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized. 


COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 21 


SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

MR. RAMA. I move that we suspend the session until 
two o’clock this afternoon to listen to the sponsorship 
of the Committee on Local Governments. 


The Committee on Local Governments to which were referred 
Proposed Resolution No. 182, introduced by Honorable Tingson, 
entitled: 

RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL 
PROVISION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, 


THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) 
The Chair hears none; the session is suspended until two 
o’clock in the afternoon. 

It was 11:51 a.m. 

RESUMPTION OF SESSION 
At 2:16 p.m., the session was resumed. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President. 


THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized. 


CONSIDERATION OF 

PROPOSED RESOLUTION NOS. 470 AND 511 
(Article on Local Governments and 
Additional Provisions Thereto) 


PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE 

^ ^ove that we consider Commitb 
anH 1 Proposed Resolution Nos. 41 

Govemm ^^t Committee on Loc 


ThlaafSs^nml^theM^^^ objection? (SUence) 
me motion is approved 

R'“'“«on Nos. 470 and 
.act tn order. With the permission of the body 
the Secretary-General wUl read only the title of the 
proposed resolutrons without prejudice to inserting in 
the Record the whole text thereof. ^ 

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL. Proposed Resolution 

No. 470, entitled: 


Proposed Resolution No. 329, introduced by Honorable Tingson, 
entitled: 

RESOLUTION GRANTING AUTHORITY TO THE BARAN- 
GAYS TO RETAIN A PORTION OF TAXES AND 
OTHER REVENUES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PUR- 
POSES, 


Proposed Resolution No. 361, introduced by Honorable Trefias, 
entitled: 

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTI- 
TUTION A NEW PROVISION EMPOWERING LOCAL 
GOVERNMENTS TO LEVY AND COLLECT TAXES 
UNIQUE, DISTINCT AND EXCLUSIVE TO THEM AND 
TO SPEND THE REVENUES RAISED THEREFROM IN 
ORDER TO MAKE LOCAL AUTONOMY REALLY 
MEANINGFUL AND EFFECTIVE , 

has considered the same and has the honor to report them back 
to the Constitutional Commission of 1986 with the recommenda- 
tion that attached Proposed Resolution No. 470, prepared by the 
Committee, entitled; 

RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE 
NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON LOCAL 
GOVERNMENTS, 

be approved in substitution of Proposed Resolution Nos. 182, 
329 and 361 with Honorable Nolledo, Calderon, Tingson, 
Rosales, Alonto, de Castro, Bennagen, Rigos, Regalado, Jamir and 
Ople as authors. 


Respectfully submitted: 


(Sgd.) Jose N. Nolledo 
Chairman 

Committee on Local Governments 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


167 


PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 470 

* 

RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE 
NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON LOCAL GOV- 
ERNMENTS, 

Resolved, as it is hereby resolved by the Constitutional Com- 
mission in session assembled, to incorporate the following Article 
on Local Governments: 

ARTICLE 

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 

SECTION 1 . The provinces, cities, municipalities, barrios and 
the autonomous regions are the territorial and political subdivi- 
sions of the Republic of the Philippines. 

SEC. 2. Legislative bodies of local governments shall have 
sectoral representation as may be prescribed by law. 

SEC. 3. No autonomous region, province, city, municipality, 
or barrio may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its 
boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with criteria 
established by law, and subject to approval by a majority of the 
votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose in the unit or units 
directly affected. 

SEC. 4. The President of tire Phihppines shall exercise general 
supervision over local governments to ensure that laws are faith- 
fully executed. 

SEC. 5. Local goveriunent units may group themselves, con- 
solidate or coordinate their efforts, services, and resources for 
purposes commonly beneficial to them. 

SEC. 6. Each government unit shall have the power to create 
its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, fees and charges 
subject to such guidelines as may be fixed by law. 

SEC. 7. Local governments shall have the power to levy and 
collect charges or contributions unique, distinct and exclusive to 
them. 

SEC. 8. Local taxes shall belong exclusively to local govern- 
ments and they shall likewise be entitled to share in the proceeds 
of the exploitation and development of the national wealth with- 
in their respective areas. The share of local governments in the 
national taxes shall be released to them automatically. 

COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 25 

The Committee on Local Governments to which were referred 
Proposed Resolution No. 15, introduced by Honorable de los 
Reyes, Jr. and Maambong, entitled: 

RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL 
PROVISION WHICH WILL ASSURE RECOGNITION 
OF THE CORDILLERA REGION, PREVENT ITS 
FUTURE DISMEMBERMENT AND FOR OTHER PUR- 
POSES, 

Proposed Resolution No. 17, introduced by Honorable Azcuna, 
entitled: 

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR REGIONAL GOVERN- 
MENTS, 


Proposed Resolution No. 138, introduced by Honorable Nolledo, 
entitled: 

RESOLUTION TO INSERT IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION 
PROVISIONS ON MEANINGFUL AND AUTHENTIC 
DECENTRALIZATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BY 
ADOPTING WITH MODIFICATIONS THE PROPOSED 
PROVISIONS BY THE UP LAW CONSTITUTION 
PROJECT, 

Proposed Resolution No. 176, introduced by Honorable Ben- 
nagen and Rosario Braid, entitled: 

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTI- 
TUTION A PROVISION REQUIRING THE STATE TO 
ESTABLISH A GENUINE AUTONOMOUS GOVERN- 
MENT IN THE CORDILLERA REGION WITHIN A DE- 
MOCRATIC AND SOVEREIGN FILIPINO NATION, 

Proposed Resolution No. 178, introduced by Honorable Rosario 
Braid, entitled: 

RESOLUTION DECLARING THE AUTONOMY OF 
REGIONAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS AS 
THE BASIC FRAMEWORK OF THE POLITICAL STRUC- 
TURE OF THE STATE, 

Proposed Resolution No. 247, introduced by Honorable Maam- 
bong, Natividad, de los Reyes and Ople, entitled: 

RESOLUTION GRANTING FULL AUTONOMY TO LOCAL 
GOVERNMENTS, 

Proposed Resolution No. 394, introduced by Honorable Sarmien- 
to, entitled: 

RESOLUTION INCORPORATING IN THE NEW CONSTI- 
TUTION AN ARTICLE RECOGNIZING AND DEFINING 
THE RIGHTS OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS TO 
LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT, 

Proposed I^esolution No. 409, introduced by Honorable Ople, 
entitled: 

RESOLUTION CREATING AUTONOMOUS REGIONS FOR 
THE MUSLIMS OF MINDANAO AND THE PEOPLE OF 
THE CORDILLERA HIGHLANDS AND PROVIDING 
FOR OTHER AREAS OF AUTONOMY WITHIN 
LARGER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, 

Proposed Resolution No. 414, introduced by Honorable Rama, 
entitled: 

RESOLUTION TO RESTORE THE PRE-MARTIAL LAW 
POLICY OF ALLOWING VOTERS IN HIGHLY URBAN- 
IZED CITIES TO VOTE FOR PROVINCIAL OFFICIALS, 

has considered the same and has the honor to report them back 
to the Constitutional Commission of 1986 with the recommenda- 
tion that attached Proposed Resolution No. 5 1 1, prepared by the 
Committee, entitled: 

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTI- 
TUTION ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS IN THE ARTICLE 
ON LOCAL governments. 


168 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11 , 1 986 


be approved in substitution of Proposed Resolution Nos. 15, 17, 
138, 176, 178, 247, 394, 409 and 414 with Honorable Nolledo, 
Calderon, Tingson, Rosales, Alonto, de Castro, Bennagen, Rigos, 
Regalado, Jamir, Ople, de los Reyes, Jr., Maambong, Azcuna, 
Rosario Braid, Natividad,Sarmiento and Rama as authors thereof. 

Respectfully submitted: 

(Sgd.) Jose N. Nolledo 
Chairman 

Committee on Local Governments 
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 5 1 1 

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONST!- 
TUTION ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS IN THE ARTICLE 
ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 

Resolved, as it is hereby resolved by the Constitutional Com- 
mission in session assembled, to incorporate the following 
sections in the Article on Local Governments, in addition to those 
proposed in Resolution No. 470 (Committee Report No. 21): 




LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 

SEC. 9. The legislature shall create autonomous region 
sisting o provuices and cities with common historical, gee 
I ^ tural, linguistic, ethnic, communal, economic or othe 
cteacte„«s wiftta ttie Wwork of and respecting th 

rSpXr"'’’ ““ “ 

SEC. 10. The legislature shaU enact an Organic Act for th 
nomous region in consultation with elective officials of th 
p ovmces and cities within the region. This Organic Act shal 
e asic structure of government for the autonomou 
gion consisting of the regional executive department am 
giona egislative assembly both of which shall be elective an< 
representative of the constituent political units. The Organic Ac 
niay ewise provide for a judicial system consisting of Courts o 
jurisdiction within the autonomous region consisten 
wi t e provisions of this Constitution on Judicial Power. 

SEC. 1 1 . The President of the Philippines shall exercise genera 
supervision over autonomous regions to ensure that laws are fait! 
fully executed. 

its territorial jurisdiction, the autonomou 
region shall have authority over the following: 

(1) Administrative organization; 

Regional taxation as provided for by law; 
egional urban and rural planning and development; 
e ion economic, social and cultural developmer 
K ^^onomic development to policies lai 
y e National Economic Development Authoi 

'*’y j 

Establishment, maintenance and administration c 
schools m the autonomous region- 

Promotion and regulation of tourism within the regior 
Establishment, operation and maintenance of region: 
health, welfare and other social services; 


( 2 ) 

(3) 

(4) 


(5) 

( 6 ) 
(7) 


(8) Protection of the environment in accordance with stand- 
ards and regulations of the national government; 

(9) Preservation of customs and traditions and culture 
indigenous to the autonomous region; 

(10) Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the 
promotion of the general welfare of the people of the 
autonomous region. 

SEC. 13. Without prejudice to the above provisions, and 
except in areas of legislation exclusively belonging to the national 
government such as foreign relations, the national defense cus- 
toms, tariff, post and telecommunications, the autonomous 
regions shall, by its regional assemblies, be authorized to legislate 
on all other matters which concern the local administration of 
such autonomous regions. 

SEC. 14. The maintenance of peace and order within the 
region shall remain the responsibility of the local chief executive 
of each constituent unit who shall exercise supervision over local 
police forces within the region. The defense of the region shall be 
the responsibility of the national police or army. When circum- 
stances so warrant, the regional government may establish its own 
special forces subject to supervision by the national armed forces 
and under such provisions as the law may provide. Such special 
forces shall be under the command of the President of the 
Philippines. 

SEC. 15. All powers, functions, and responsibilities not 
granted by this Constitution or by law to the autonomous regions 
are vested in the National Government. 

SEC. 16. The first legislature under this constitution shall, 
within one year from election of its Members, pass the Organic 
Acts for the autonomous regions of Mindanao and the Cor- 
dillera. The said legislature shall, within a period of not more 
than six (6) months after the organization thereof, immediately 
define the territorial jurisdiction of autonomous regions that may 
be granted Organic Acts. 


MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Committee Chairman, Com- 
missioner Nolledo, is recognized. 

SPONSORSHIP SPEECH 
OF COMMISSIONER NOLLEDO 

MR. NOLLEDO. Before I proceed to deliver my brief 
sponsorship remarks, I would like to state here that our 
Committee made two reports. Committee Report 
No. 21 covers, among others, the kinds of local govern- 
ment units, their taxing powers and the provision on 
coordination of different political units for their com- 
mon benefits; while Committee Report No. 25 contains 
the provisions on autonomous regions. After my brief 
remarks. Madam President, the other members of the 
Committee, namely, Commissioners Alonto and Ben- 
nagen, will also give their own remarks to be concluded 
by Commissioner Ople. 

Before I proceed further, I would like to express the 
Committee’s most profound gratitude to the governors 
and city mayors of the League of Governors and City 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


169 


Mayors whom I met at Quezon City and with whom I 
had a two-hour dialogue. We would like to express our 
gratitude to Mr. Rene Santiago of the Philippine Insti- 
tute of Environmental Planners, Mr. Michael Mastura, 
the Philippine Social Science Council, the Office of 
Muslim Affairs and Cultural Communities, especially 
Minister Candu Muarip and Atty. Fausto Lingating. 

Madam President, the cry for meaningful, effective 
and forceful autonomy has been loud and clear all over 
the country. That cry will no longer be a voice in the 
wilderness. Let this 1986 Constitutional Commission 
give a bold and unequivocal answer to that cry. The 
report of the Committee on Local Governments is an 
indictment against the status quo of a unitary system 
that, to my mind, has ineluctably tied the hands of 
progress in our country. It is claimed. Madam President, 
that our linguistic and ethnic diversities are weaknesses 
that can be strengthened by the unitary system; but I 
say our varying regional characteristics are factors to 
capitalize on to attain national strength througli decen- 
tralization. 

As stated by Mr. Rene Santiago of tlie Philippine 
Institute of Environmental Planners, who appeared 
several times before our Committee, a structure of socie- 
tal organization must adopt to the people and not the 
people to a preconceived model of organization. He 
stated: 

Filipinos are said to be highly individualistic, fractious, 
ungovernable, and heir to numerous persuasions. A pluralist 
society like ours would behave incongruously under the 
unitary setup as many social scientists have observed to the 
point of schizophrenia. It should be at home in a “federal- 
ized environment.” 

Decentralization gives hope to the poor. It disperses 
political power and responsibility, just as wealth must 
be equitably diffused. As Somacher, an economist, said: 
“Centralization is mainly an idea of order while decen- 
tralization, one of freedom.” As Rene Santiago ob- 
served, centralization emphasizes the maintenance of 
status quo for society to sustain itself, while decentrali- 
zation promotes entrepreneurship and innovation. 

Our unitary structure, indeed, gravitates toward 
order that progress — national and local — becomes a 
casualty. Because of our enormous and hardheaded 
adherence to the unitary system foisted upon us by 
the colonial powers in a span of several centuries, 
Filipinos have found the idea of dictatorship appeal- 
ing. That is why we always hear, and we seem to believe, 
that we Filipinos respond better to a strong leader and 
we find ourselves wittingly rammed through a situation 
where our rights are despicably trampled upon and 
where freedom becomes illusory and our dreams remain 
empty and unfulfilled. Thus, despite our vast natural 
resources and our great intellectual endowments, the 
Philippines has lagged behind her Asian neighbors. 

In our report, we have widened the taxing powers of 
local governments. Thus, under our report, they can 
impose taxes, fees and charges, with right of retention 


and disbursements without undue interference from the 
national government. They shall likewise be entitled to 
share in the proceeds of exploitation and development 
of the national wealth within their respective areas. We 
also provided in the report that the share of local 
governments in the national taxes be released to them 
automatically. Our Committee did not adopt any provi- 
sion authorizing the establishment of a metropolitan 
government because we wanted to avoid overlapping of 
functions. Moreover, putting together highly urbanized 
cities infringes upon the principles of local autonomy 
and decentralization. I, for one, believe that the Metro 
Manila Commission, created under P.D. No. 824, was 
truly a self-centered creation of the deposed dictator 
Ferdinand Marcos who wanted to consolidate political 
power over areas within Metro Manila as a gift to his 
wife and inspired by the historical imperative that the 
fall of the capital region will mean the end of their 
imperial rule. The geopolitical area of Metro Manila, 
however, may be maintained under a coordinating 
agency as authorized by the provision of our committee 
report that local government units may coordinate and 
consolidate their efforts and services for purposes 
beneficial to them. 

Madam President, for the first time in the Philippine 
Constitution, in favorable reaction to the needs of the 
times and in recognition of the realities of Philippine 
situation, we are mandating the legislature to create 
autonomous regions within the framework of, and 
respecting the, national sovereignty and territorial 
integrity of the Republic of the Philippines. 

Our Committee was tom between the question of 
setting a fully federal form of government and the 
question of merely establishing autonomous regions. 
We decided to make our provisions flexible in the sense 
that while we are mandating the creation of auto- 
nomous regions, particularly of Muslim Mindanao and 
the Cordilleras, we are opening an avenue towards full 
federalization of the Republic of the Philippines by way 
of creating several autonomous regions should Congress 
decide to do so in the future. Commissioners Alonto, 
Bennagen and Ople will explain further the need to set 
up autonomous regions. 

Madam President, the challenge of this generation is 
brought forth before this august body. I fervently hope 
and pray that this Commission will prove equal to the 
challenge. 

Thank you very much. 

Madam President, may I request that Commissioner 
Alonto be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Alonto is recog- 
nized. 

SPONSORSHIP SPEECH 
OF COMMISSIONER ALONTO 

MR. ALONTO. Madam President, there is nothing 
more that I could add to the brilliant exposition of the 


170 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


distinguished Chairman of our Committee. I only want 
to add some historical experience I encountered when I 
had the privilege of being honored as one of those that 
have contributed to nation-building. 


Madam President, the idea of a regional development 
plan started in Congress in the year 1954. It was in that 
year that the members of Congress of which I was a 
humble member started to promote the idea of a 
regional economic development in this country in the 
course of our nation-budding. That experiment of 
Congress developed the idea that a regional economic 
development of our country is much more effective 
than a centralized idea coming from the central 
government. 


It was in that period when the establishment of 
different development authorities, starting with the 
Mindanao Development Authority, was passed and 
made into law by Congress. This also started the idea of 
presenting before the nation builders of this country 
that idea of the sociopolitical development of our 
country based upon the concept of regional authority 
or regional concept. Such concept started the idea that a 
federal form of government would be more acceptable 
m our country, taking into account the geographical 
situation the composition of the society, and the 
histoncal background of the Filipino society. 

Based on a paper I read before one of the seminars 
organized before the start of the 1971 Constitutional 
Convention enhUed The Political Problems of the 
u ura Minorities, Mao’s effective way of solving 
tne problem of uniting and consolidating the multi- 
anous sectors of our society would be some sort of a 

tederal form of government. In this document, I stated 
the following: 

I can surmise this early that the strongest single factor 
at prompted the call for this charter revision is the sense 
of urgency felt by the different sectors that comprise the 
society to find a solution to the state of disintegration 
taking place in our midst. 


It is then a must that in re-framing the same law, it 
would be the highest sense of patriotism for every member 
privileged to participate to analyze all the basic problems 
t at confront our society, not the least important of which 
IS t e problem of Philippine unity. Together, let us recon- 
s met our political thoughts in order to reconstitute the 
same to conform to the basic phUosophy of all the dif- 
eren e ements that make up our society. Let us not hesi- 

our governmental structure if 
necessary, to make it conform to the basic ideals of the 

“«tr t ? composmg our society. Let us abandon the 
ai jacket to which we were plunged by our erstwhile 
masters as a condition precedent to the grant of a political 
freedom and which became the basic cause of our failure tc 
imbue the society with the desirable sense of oneness anc 
common destiny. For, unless we can imbue our people wit! 
a sense of oneness and common destiny, there seems to bi 
no possible avenue of containing the process of disintegra 


tion that is going on in our very midst involving not only 
the cultural minorities but the whole fabric of our society. 

I daresay that if to achieve unity, it is necessary to divide 
the country into several autonomous states bound together 
by a common goal and sense of oneness, we should not 
hesitate to do so. If unity cannot be achieved in a strictly 
unitary system as experience has taught us, then by all 
means let us revert to the only option left open for us — 
UNITY IN DIVERSITY — which seems to be the goal fixed 
for us by Divine Wisdom when our ancestors, belonging to a 
common racial strain but speaking different tongues, 
ventured through unchartered seas guided by the same 
Divine Providence to these different islands separated by 
natural barriers yet belonging to the same geographical 
region. For the sake of the hundreds of thousands, perhaps 
millions, of precious lives of our kith and kin that were 
sacrificed in the fields of battles to defend their newfound 
paradise, for us, their progeny, let us forge that unity of the 
anvil of necessity, perchance God Almighty, whose Provi- 
dence controls the destiny of man and nation, grants that 
we can preserve these beautiful Isles for the generations yet 
to come. 

In other words. Madam President, my very rationale 
for standing on the principle that we must take into 
account and into consideration the multifarious sectors 
of our society, the multiplicity of ideology, the multi- 
plicity of principles in our society to be able to struc- 
ture our government is for each sector of the society to 
make a basis of their cooperation in nation-building the 
ideals that they preciously consider for themselves. 

This is why in the different proposals to this Consti- 
tutional Commission, I am most appreciative of those 
proposals that will at least give autonomous freedom to 
the different sections of, if not all over, the country, 
but at least to start with, with those that in the course 
of our nation-building have shown some disparate and 
unrefusing and a highly Unitarian centralized authority 
in this country. 

I refer. Madam President, to the Muslims of Mindanao 
and to some of our brothers in Northern Luzon who 
adhere to the principle that in order to have real free- 
dom, real justice and real democracy, each section of 
our society must be given the chance and freedom to 
develop the ideals they prize so much in life. 

Madam President, I would like to lengthen my 
remarks in support of the remarks of our distinguished 
Chairman. However, I would just submit as part of the 
Record some documents which are very pertinent to the 
discussion we are now about to do. One of these is a 
document entitled Position Paper No. 2, which discusses 
the political problems of the cultural minorities in this 
country.* 

Another document is on the need for a national 
community which was the essence of a speech that this 
humble Representation delivered before the 1971 
Constitutional Convention.* 


♦See Appendix 


MONDAY, AUGUST 1 1, 1986 


171 


Another document I would like to submit as part of 
the Record of this Constitutional Commission and as 
part of my remarks is a document entitled Structure of 
Government by Rev. Francisco Araneta, former Pres- 
ident of the Ateneo de Manila.* This was submitted 
before the 1971 Constitutional Convention, proposing a 
federal form of government for the country. 

The last document I would like to present is a speech 
of a divine — some of the last prono'uncements of the 
late Senator Benigno Aquino.* In that document, he 
proposed a solution to the very perplexing problem 
caused by the Muslims in this country which resulted 
in the conclusion of the Tripoli Agreement of 1976 by 
President Marcos and the Moro National Liberation 
Front. This document clearly and articulately states that 
the solution to the problem of the Muslims in this 
country is spelled in the implementation of the Tripoli 
Agreement, and suggests means and ways by which that 
Tripoli Agreement would be implemented by the 
government. These, I submit to this body, as part of my 
short remarks and as part of the Record of this Consti- 
tutional Commission. 

Thank you, Madam President, for this opportunity 
for delivering my short remarks. I hope that the report 
of this Committee would be acceptable to the Members 
of this Constitutional Commission as a basic solution to 
our problem of establishing real unity in Philippine 
society. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I thank Senator Alonto. 

THE PRESIDENT. Let those documents referred to 
by Commissioner Alonto be made part of the proceed- 
ings. 

MR. ABUBAKAR. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Abubakar 
desire to be recognized? 

MR. ABUBAKAR. Yes, because I would like to 
strengthen the argument and the observation of both 
speakers on local autonomy, that local autonomy has 
been implemented in Mindanao and it has succeeded. 
The Southern Autonomous Government in Mindanao, 
composed of Cotabato, Sulu, Zamboanga and part of 
Northern Zamboanga, has now a seat in Zamboanga, 
with a legislative and executive chairman. It has solved 
many of the agitations and problems of Southern Min- 
danao. My remark is simply to supplement and to add 
to the argument and presentation of the Chairman that 
this is a working reality. Local autonomy is no longer 
a theoretical concept in Southern Mindanao. There is 
local autonomy whose seat is in Zamboanga; there is a 
chairman of the executive council, and there is also a 
legislative council. Each province in Southern Mindanao 
is represented in the legislative seat in Zamboanga and 
the representatives meet to enact measures for the good 
of the region. So, as far as local autonomy is concerned. 


it is a success in Mindanao and there is no reason why 
we should not move forward to embrace further 
provinces under the same aggrupation, powers and 
delegation, so that in the end, the autonomous region 
will take care of its own problems as we are now taking 
care of our problem in Zamboanga, Sulu and Cotabato. 
This would, in turn, spread the concept which will 
ultimately be the force in forging the national unity that 
the Filipinos have dreamed of and have achieved to a 
certain extent. So, regional autonomy is now working in 
Southern Mindanao. 

Thank you. 

MR. NOLLEDO. The next speaker. Madam President, 
is the honorable Commissioner Bennagen. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog- 
nized. 


SPONSORSHIP SPEECH 
OF COMMISSIONER BENNAGEN 

MR. BENNAGEN. Thank you. 

Actually, we have a number of arguments for creating 
the autonomous regions. Many of these have to do with 
efficiency and manageability, but we will discuss them 
during the period of interpellations and period of 
amendments. 

Given the little time that I have, I will just read a 
paper arguing for the granting of autonomous region 
status to both the Cordilleras and the Bangsa Moro. 

For the last several weeks, we have been deliberating 
on matters that touch the life of every Filipino, bom 
and unborn. Now, we will be deliberating on matters 
which shall determine the fate and destiny of the Bangsa 
Moro and the Cordillera people — a fate intertwined 
with our own, and for the entire country, a future 
which could spell war and fragmentation or a future of 
peace and Justice for all. Away from the harsh realities 
of the neglected and underdeveloped conditions of the 
Cordilleras and of Mindanao, it is easy for us in the 
comfort of this hall not to see how our decisions could 
affect the lives of millions of people whom we do not 
know. But I do know and have felt the overwhelming 
passion of the Bangsa Moro to achieve recognition of 
their right to self-determination. I have been witness to 
the courage and perseverance of the CordUlera peoples 
in their struggle for peace and justice. They see regional 
autonomy as the answer to their centuries of struggle 
against oppression and exploitation. For so long, their 
names and identities have been debased. Their ancestral 
lands have been ransacked for their treasures, for their 
wealth. Their cultures have been defiled, their very lives 
threatened, and worse, extinguished, all in the name of 
national development; all in the name of pubhc interest; 
all in the name of the common good; all in the name of 
the right to property; all in the name of the Regalian 
doctrine; all in the name of national security. These 


*See Appendix 


172 


MONDAY, AUGUST 1 1, 1986 


phrases have meant nothing to our indigenous communi- 
ties, except for the violation of their human rights. 

I can recite a litany of their grievances which spans 
centuries-poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition and death 
rates. But I will simply quote an old man from the 
Cordilleras who said: “We asked the government for a 
teacher, it did not give us one. We asked for some help 
in fixing our roads, it did not send us any. We asked for 
a doctor, it did not send us one. Instead, government 
men came to build a dam and sent in the Philippine 
Constabulary and the army. These, we did not ask for.” 

There are statistics on the thousands of indigenous 
communities displaced by plantations, hydroelectric 
dams, mining and logging operations by virtue of state 
laws, presidential decrees and letters of instructions. But 
it will suffice to quote the eloquent voices of Bontoc 
and Kalinga warriors. They say: “Long experience has 
shown us that the outsiders’ law is not able to under- 
stand us, our customs, and our ways. Always, the state 
laws make just what is unjust, and make right what is 
not right. We are planted here, rooted in sacred land. 
All our dead are buried here. Now we are asked by the 
government to allow our dead to be covered by the 
waters of the Chico Dam Project. This is an impossible 
request. The pvemment assures us that it will spare no 
e ort to disinter the dead, to remove the remains to 
new and better sites. It does not understand. The very 
soil we tread on is the dust of our fathers. What kind of 
9 tf agree to our annihilation as a 

S K ■ the government, it 

, ® ^ ^ doubted that we belong to the land 

or mat we question our ancient law. If we are forcibly 

rnn ^ that we will no longer 

consider ourselves under the law.” 

th forget that among the Bangsa Moro and 

cof people were people who were massacred, 

^^®®ted and imprisoned, tortured and raped, 
th name of national security, law and order. For 
e en ^e history of the Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera 
peop e IS a history of oppression and discrimination; but 
eirs too is a history of heroic resistance against sub- 
jugation, tutelage and assimilation by the Spaniards, the 
Filipirms'^^ Japanese, and even against uncaring 

We should not, therefore, be., surprised if they con- 
inue o practice their ancient traditions of tribal 
h ^3w, if they persevere in their 

right to 

kind^^of^hia^rtm ^^hout meaning this to be some 
dillpra nponip Bangsa Moro and the Cor- 

rifP fhe willpower and determina- 

sharp spears in demolishing 
any obstacle in their quest for justice, peace and self- 
determination. Listen to the fiery words of a Muslim: 
If we act in a cmhzed way which is the way of Islam, 
they do not listen to us. Pero huramentado o jihad, 
iyon ang pakikinggan nila.” 


Honorable Commissioners, we wish to impress upon 
you the gravity of the decision to be made by every 
single one of us in this Commission. We have the over- 
whelming support of the Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera 
people to grant them regional autonomy in the new 
Constitution. By this we mean meaningful and autlientic 
regional autonomy. We propose that we have a separate 
Article on the autonomous regions for the Bangsa Moro 
and Cordillera people clearly spelled out in this Consti- 
tution, instead of prolonging the agony of their vigil and 
their struggle. This, too, is a plea for national peace. Let 
us not pass the buck to the Congress to decide on this. 
Let us not wash our hands of our responsibility to attain 
national unity and peace and to settle this problem and 
rectify past injustices, once and for all. 

For once, let us think of our indigenous communities 
even as we think of the whole nation. For once, let us 
help pave the way for a future of prosperity based on 
the equality of all people. For once, let us courageously 
decide on issues based on their internal merits and not 
to be clouded in our reasoning by the tyranny of emo- 
tionally loaded words, as often indicated by statements 
like “The only good Moro is a dead Moro.” 

Let me repeat the poignant words of Senator Diokno 
who wrote to Marcos years ago, during the height of the 
Bontoc-Kalinga struggle against the Chico Dam Project: 

Our indigenous communities are part and parcel of us. 
They are living links to our yesteryears, perfect exemplars 
in fact of the barangay democracy you seek to promote. 

In their culture they may well be a lamp on our past, to our 
tomorrow. To destroy them is to destroy a vital part of our 
past, our present and our future. Their death as a people, 
and we do not hesitate to call it “genocide,” will be ours, 
too, as a nation. Whether justice or injustice, peace or 
violence, life or death shall prevail, is entirely in your 
hands. 

Finally, let me echo the wise words of the Muslirns 
whom we met during the public hearings: “You in this 
Commission have a rare opportunity to write a docu- 
ment of peace and justice.” 

Let us not miss that opportunity. 

Marami pong salamat. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I thank Commissioner Bennagen. 
The last but not the least speaker is the Honorable Bias 
F. Ople. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized. 

SPONSORSHIP SPEECH OF COMMISSIONER OPLE 

MR. OPLE. Thank you, Madam President. 

I think the Commission is dealing with two reports 
from the Committee on Local Governments. Committee 
Report No. 2 1 deals with local autonomy for the 
government as a whole, particularly the local units, 
which I think is very important. It is said that this is a 
colonial legacy, the overcentralized system of govern- 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


173 


ment that denies the role of initiative at the local levels. 
It is, of course, understandable that a colonial power 
would first of all annihilate the autonomy of local units 
in order to ensure a foolproof security against potential 
rebellions or disturbances. But at the same time Com- 
mittee Report No. 25 deals with a more specialized kind 
of autonomy, that is to say, autonomous regions, on the 
premise that certain regions with unique cultural, his- 
toric, social and even religious bonds where they have 
been placed in a position of inferiority relative to the 
dominant groups in society have the right to demand 
autonomy, a measure of self-determination within the 
larger political framework of the nation-state. I am 
addressing my remarks in the next two or three minutes 
precisely to the purposes of Committee Report No. 25. 
Within this draft Article, therefore, there is a major 
provision for the creation of autonomous regions. It is 
an authority for Congress to provide by law for such 
regions of autonomy as may be determined to be 
necessary. 

Throughout modern history, Madam President, auto- 
nomy for certain regions within the framework of the 
nation-state has meant a constructive alternative to 
secessionist aspirations. May I quote briefly from the 
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences the following 
words, and I quote: 

Autonomy on a territorial basis would easily conflict 
with the State but the two are not irreconcilable. If a State 
fails to induce interest in the continued maintenance of the 
State union on the part of frontier outlying or racially alien 
regions, it incurs the danger of their being annexed or of 
their gaining independence. As a remedy, the State may 
grant to such regions a certain measure of self-government 
within the larger political framework. 

The Muslim-Filipinos in Mindanao have fought for 
hundreds of years to preserve their independence and 
their identity from the colonial power. More recently, 
they precipitated a civil war in Mindanao which has 
already caused an estimated 100,000 lives, including the 
lives of noncombatant women and children. The hostili- 
ties fortunately were suspended in 1976 as a result of 
the Tripoli Ceasefire Agreement. But this dormant war 
may act up all over again with all its renewed fury if no 
understanding is reached between the Moro National 
Liberation Front and the Aquino government. I under- 
stand that by next month the negotiations will resume 
in Jeddah where also the organization of the Islamic 
Confermice will be meeting. And that is the whole 
point. This agreement for peace between Filipinos has 
been mediated by a 42-nation international organization 
of the Islamic Conference as though our Muslim 
brothers have to look beyond our own shores and 
beyond the capabilities of our own government, across 
the seas, for justice in the association of their fellow 
legionists called the Islamic Conference of 42 states. 

In the Cordillera region, we all know that there is 
still an ongoing armed rebellion as well as continuous 
militant but peaceful agitation for autonomy. 


The Constitutional Commission is, therefore, 
presented with one of those rare opportunities, perhaps 
unrepeatable, to seal the permanent unity of these two 
regions with the rest of us, with the rest of the republic 
by granting them autonomous status as proposed in this 
draft Article within the larger sovereignty of the Repub- 
lic of the Philippines. The draft Article prepared by 
the Committee on Local Governments under the dis- 
tinguished chairmanship of Commissioner Nolledo 
defines the criteria for autonomous regions and their 
spheres of jurisdiction. It reserves very clearly certain 
powers that only the national government may exercise 
including those dealing with foreign affairs, national 
defense, post, telegraph and communication and even 
the guidelines of economic policy, and where there is a 
security force, the supervision of the Armed Forces of 
the Philippines, and the control of the President of the 
Philippines. 

It calls on Congress to enact the organic acts for two 
regions - Mindanao and the Cordillera - within one 
year from the election of its members. So, this is an 
assignment with a deadline to insure that there will be 
results. The approval of this provision will immediately 
raise the hopes, morale and faith in the nation of the 
millions of our brother Filipinos involved in these 
regions and will be a major contribution to peace in our 
land, in our time. 

Thank you. Madam President. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I thank Commissioner Ople. 

Madam President, we are now ready to entertain 
questions from the honorable Members of the Com- 
mission. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, may I ask that Com- 
missioner Trenas be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Trenas is recog- 
nized. 

MR. TRENAS. Madam President, may 1 ask the 
Committee or its Chairman a few questions for clarifica- 
tion? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Gladly. 

MR. TREl^AS. I am referring to Committee Report 
No. 21. Section 1 made reference to the different 
political subdivisions and among them, the barrios. I 
notice that in the 1973 Constitution, the barrio was also 
referred to as the smallest political subdivision. 

In the rneantime, we have the barangay as the 
smallest political subdivision. May I ask the Committee 
if this provision of the 1973 Constitution referring to 
the barrios has been amended and instead the barangay 
was used? 

MR. NOLLEDO. The Committee has decided to 
revert to the original name of barrio instead of barangay. 


174 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


Mr. Marcos issued some decrees changing the barrio 
to barangay and those decrees should be declared 
unconstitutional because there was no corresponding 
amendment in the 1973 Constitution. The 1973 Consti- 
tution uses up to now, as also embodied in the Freedom 
Constitution, the word “barrio.” Besides, we received a 
lot of communications from all over the country asking 
us to revert to the name “barrio” because most of the 
ancient and even legal documents including titles still 
use the word “barrio.” The term “barrio schools” is 
still found in the different parts of the country. I 
think another reason is that the barangay is indicative 
of the dictatorial regime of Mr. Marcos. It is also the 
unanimous sense of the members of the League of 
Governors and City Mayors that we revert to the term 
“barrio.” 

MR. TRE5JAS. So, from the time of the adoption of 
the present Constitution we are drafting, we shall refer 
to barrios. 


MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President. 


MR. TRENAS. Insofar as Section 3 of the Article on 
Local Governments is concerned, in case of province or 
city or municipality is divided or merged, the approval 
of the majority of the votes in a plebiscite called for the 
^rpose in the unit or units directly affected is needed, 
j recent case of Negros del Norte which was 
ivi e rom Negros Occidental. The plebiscite referred 
iirhabitants of the proposed municipality 
an t e Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. 
1 ne Committee adheres to the ruling of the Supreme 
inhabitants to be consulted should not 
on y e the inhabitants of the new province or city or 
town but the whole province. Am I right? 


^ ^Sree with the Gentleman fully, 
mink the Committee will fully agree because of th 
words directly affected.” Those people are als 
directly affected by division. 


MR. TRENAS. Just one more question. Section 6 of 

e same Article made reference to the right of local 

governments to create their own sources of revenue 

an axes. However, Section 7 also gave the same right 

o oca governments to levy and collect charges of con- 

tv! unique, distinct and exclusive to them. Will 

wti o explain the difference between 

Section 6 and Section 7? 


IS 


a direr! rr. f with respect to Section 6, this 

eovernment i!* Constitution on each local 

of revenue and^ Power to impose its own sources 

mav he fiv H K t^xes Subject to such guidelines 

•n read nf iis’^ c!!- Gentleman will notice that 

instead of using limitations as may be fixed by law,” 

we used guidelmes as recommended by the League of 

Governors and City Mayors. So, there is a need for an 

authority like this constitutional authority for each 

local government unit to impose such taxes, fees and 


charges. With respect to Section 7 this section recog- 
nizes some customary rules authorizing the levy of 
unique, distinct and exclusive taxes in accordance with 
the customs of each particular place. There is no need of 
any law, constitutional or statutory, for local govern- 
ment units to impose these taxes. In other words, we 
recognize the existence of customs and, in effect, we 
give validity to such customs. 

MR. TREfsJAS. Precisely, I notice the significance of 
the fact that while in Section 6 the Committee placed 
“subject to such guidelines as may be fixed by law,” the 
same is not found in Section 7. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, because there is an intent on 
the part of the Constitutional Commission, it seems to 
me, to preserve the customs and traditions of members 
of the indigenous communities. And this is one way ot 
preserving their customs and traditions. When these 
levies are imposed by customs, I think we assume that 
the members of the indigenous communities consider 
them reasonable enough and they are willing and able 
to pay them. 

MR. TREnAS. Therefore, 1 am to understand that 
Congress cannot, insofar as Section 7 is concerned, pass 
a law subjecting the levy and charges mentioned therein 
to any guideline. 

MR. NOLLEDO. We do not necessarily preclude that 
possibility. Congress may, after all, impose such guide- 
lines as when the people crave for such guidelines. 

MR. TRENAS. However, the effect of Section 7 is 
that local governments may spend the levy and charges 
for its own use. 

MR. NOLLEDO. That is true. 

MR. TRENAS. Exclusively? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President. 

MR. TRENAS. Finally, I notice in the Article on 
Local Governments that highly urbanized cities, which 
were mentioned in the 1973 Constitution, are not men- 
tioned anymore. The effect of that is, as I recall, highly 
urbanized cities were not allowed to vote for provincial 
officials. Since we have done away with them, inhabi- 
tants of the cities can now vote for provincial officials. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President. I think that 
was a clear intent on the part of the Committee. The 
Gentleman will notice that in Section 4 (1), Article XI 
of the 1973 Constitution, this sentence appears; 

Highly urbanized cities, as determined by standards 

established in the local government code, shall be in- 
dependent of the province. 

We deleted that; we did not place that in our report 
because we believe that voters of highly urbanized cities 
should be allowed to participate in provincial elections. 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


175 


MR. TRE5IAS. Thank you very much. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I would like to ask a 
few questions of the Committee. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rama may pro- 
ceed. 

MR. RAMA. One reading Articles XXI and XXV will 
learn a lot of things about what are the autonomous 
units, who will form the autonomous units, what the 
main features of the autonomous units are, who is going 
to supervise them, et cetera, but it seems that one would 
not learn this basic question. What is the purpose of 
these autonomous units? Why are we creating or intro- 
ducing them? Why do we need these autonomous units? 
Why do we create them? Does the Gentleman not think 
that we should have some kind of a statement on the 
purpose, considering that this is a new feature in our 
Constitution whereby the citizen could understand and 
know the justification and the reason for such auto- 
nomous units by giving a center to all these Articles like, 
for instance, stating that the purpose is to speed up the 
economic and social development of the regions and the 
people therein? Would the Gentleman consider a state- 
ment to that effect later in the period of amendments? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President. That ques- 
tion of the Gentleman, I think, is very vital because the 
members of the Committee are deeply concerned about 
the formation of autonomous regions. Based on my 
sponsorship speech, I believe that the purely unitary 
system has been a failure in the Republic of the Philip- 
pines. This country will never progress if we do not 
create autonomous regions. 

MR. RAMA. Yes, I agree with the Gentleman com- 
pletely but I just want that information for the people. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes. I would like to furthermore 
state, if the Chair does not mind, that even in the 
Constitutional Commission, we decided to fragmentize 
Q-m*g0jyg§ into forming various committees towards a 
common end to draft the Constitution as early as 
possible. You will notice that Committees function 
effectively, and so we talk of some sort of a division of 
labor in the same manner that we talk of division of 
power. 

For purposes of posterity, we would like to give some 
advantages in support of regional autonomous regions. 

Rapid growth could be better attained with a more 
efficient and effective management of the country. By 
limiting matters to be decided by the central govern- 
ment to those of national importance, the central 
government will not be unduly distracted by localized 
problems. Moreover, programs should be designed ac- 
cording to regional priorities and potentials rather than 
on the national yardstick of least common denominator. 
A genuine autonomy is inhospitable to the rise of 


another Marcos; it will be more difficult for foreign 
powers to influence or dominate the country because 
it may happen that foreigners may influence one region 
but another region may resist, and it is not easy to con- 
trol all these regions. Also, by reason of the archipelagic 
geography of our country, central governance is ineffi- 
cient and unresponsive. A regionalized structure will 
make the government more accessible to the people. 
That we are regionalistic as a people is beyond dispute. 
The reasons for these are, besides our island geography, 
the existing linguistic and ethnic diversities. The State 
can achieve equitable distribution of income through 
the decentralization of political and economic power. In 
addition, the exercise of these powers through local 
autonomy is also the key to modernization of our rural 
areas. You will notice that the following countries have 
autonomous regions: Spain, Italy, Argentina, Switzer- 
land, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Austria, 
among others. China is also one of them. In fact, in the 
Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 

I understand, even the names of the regions are men- 
tioned. You will also notice that Switzerland, because it 
has different ethnic idiosyncracies — it has 22 cantons 
and two are semicantons — despite the fact that its 
people have different persuasions, remains united. There 
are Etruscans, Cretans, Celts, Romans, and Germans. 
They have also a variety of languages. Two-thirds speak 
German, one-fifth French, one-tenth Italian, and one 
percent Rhaeto-Romanic. Despite the diversity in 
religion as well as diversity in customs and traditions, 
there is unity in Switzerland. 

MR. RAMA. Thank you. Madam President. 

I notice that the basis for unifying components to 
form into an autonomous unit as stated in Section 9 
should be: 

. . . common historical, geographic, cultural, linguistic, 

ethnic, communal, economic or other characteristics within 

the framework of and respecting the national sovereignty. 

On the other hand, in Section 16, it seems that the only 
basis for forming Mindanao and Cordillera into auto- 
nomous regions is the ethnic and cultural reason; is that 
correct? 

MR. NOLLEDO. The Gentleman will notice that that 
is not the only basis. That provision that he cited - I am 
very happy that he cited that provision - opens the 
avenue towards full federalization of the Republic of 
the Philippines. That is why we enumerated several 
factors to be considered. The Gentleman can add other 
factors if he wishes but ethnic consideration is not the 
only 'factor to be considered in the grant of autonomy 
to Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras 

MR. I pant that ethnic consideration should 

be considered with respect to these unique regions. But 
does not the Gentleman think that we should be a little 
flexible in the sense that when we try to unite certain 


176 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


areas, we also take into consideration the economic Sections 1 to 8 general principles which would be 
basis? applicable also to autonomous regions? 


MR. NOLLEDO. We really consider the economic 
factor as material in the formation of an autonomous 
region. 

MR. RAMA. For instance, there is a site where a dam 
can be constructed that will benefit a lot of areas 
around it. Instead of just looking into the ethnic or 
cultural components of that area, would we not consider 
from the economic pcjint of view that the whole area 
would be served by that dam and, therefore, would 
boost the economy of that region? 

MR. NOLLEDO. The Gentleman is perfectly correct, 
Madam President. In fact, the word “communal” can 
be a basis to form an autonomous region. For example, 
we can have Bicolandia as another autonomous region. 

^ creating an autonomous region 
for Mindanao, the Gentleman would consider going 
beyond areas where the Muslims do not reside if it 
would be for the benefit of that area as a region or as 
an autonomous unit? 


MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, they are interre- 
lated with each other because even in Committee 
Report No. 21, we mentioned the term “autonomous 
regions.” Based on basic rules of statutory construction. 
Committee Report No. 21 may be qualified by the 
pertinent provisions of Committee Report No. 25 in 
appropriate cases. 

MR. ROMULO. Thank you. 

Going to Section 3, my understanding of Section 3 is 
as follows: That an autonomous region or a province for 
that matter cannot be created without first having a 
plebiscite among the inhabitants affected. Is that 
correct? 

MR. NOLLEDO. I agree with the Gentleman, Madam 
President. 

MR. ROMULO. A plebiscite is a precondition to the 
creation of an autonomous region or a province or a 
subdivision of an existing unit; is that correct? 


Pre^denf^Th^f^r ' ^ possibility. Madam 

Q Gentleman will also notice that in 

wantpH t ’ added “or other characteristics.” We 
f wider leeway to the Congress in the 

he uratit ri Whether the regional autonomy should 
be granted to a particular region. 

By the same token, for instance, there is 
anH a ^ proviucc that produces certain products 
hpraiicp^f P*‘°'^bice that consumes that product 
not hp hn produce that product. Could they 

that econnn?- ^ ^°§®ther in one region on the basis of 

that economic consideration? 

MR. NOLLEDO. That is also a possibility. 

MR. RAMA. I thank the distinguished Commissioner. 
MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you. 

be reco^^fd"^' Commissioner Romulo 

THE PRESIDENT • • 
j^j 2 ed. ‘ '“^^rnissioner Romulo is recog- 


MR. ROMULO. Just a few 

ident. 


questions. Madam* Pres- 


tee^Lp^rt^No'^?" tt Smitt^^ 

Sections 1 to 8 general proS^^^^^ 


Uons 1 to 8 general 

unit versus the sections contained in Committ 
No. 25 which refer only to autonomous regio 


MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President, that is why 
we did not provide for that anymore in Committee 
Report No. 25. 

MR. ROMULO. So, how does the Gentleman recon- 
cile the need for a plebiscite prior to the creation of an 
autonomous region with Section 16 which already 
mandates, upon the acceptance of this Constitution, the 
Congress to pass an organic act for the autonomous 
regions of Mindanao and Cordillera? 

MR. NOLLEDO. The conflict is more apparent than 
real because the moment an organic act is granted by 
the Congress, it is understood that the organic act rnust 
find acceptance among a majority of the votes cast in a 
plebiscite called for the purpose. If there should be no 
such support, then the organic act would be ineffective. 

MR. ROMULO. Does the Gentleman not think he is 
putting the cart before the horse? Why should Congress 
not first determine whether the people or the inha- 
bitants affected desire an autonomous region before 
Congress enacts a law to that effect? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Even adopting that opinion, I think 
there would be no inconsistency. Congress may do that, 
if Congress should decide to do it. 


MR. ROMULO. But there is, because Congress is left 
no choice. Under Section 16, it is not only mandated to 
create the organic act; it is given a timetable. It is given 
no leeway whatsoever and it does not say that this 
organic act should be presented to the people in a 
plebiscite. 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


177 


On the contrary, under Section 10, the legislature 
consults only the elective officials of the provinces and 
the cities. So, to me, the construction is clear that prior 
to a plebiscite. Congress must create these autonomous 
regions and they may or may not submit it to a plebi- 
scite because the Gentleman seems to be carving an 
exception to Section 3 right in this Constitution. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I do not think so. Section 3, 
because it mentions no autonomous region, should like- 
wise apply to an autonomous region. If the Gentleman 
thinks it is necessary to make the provision clearer, then 
we will entertain the corresponding amendments. 

MR. ROMULO. That is right. 

In the Gentleman’s' answer to Commissioner Trenas 
with regard to Sections 6 and 7, he seems to imply that 
in Section 7, the legislature may nevertheless intervene. 
However, by the wording of the Gentleman, he is 
subjecting to legislative authority only the taxes created 
under Section 6. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, if the Gentleman does not 
mind it, the implication that he is talking about was 
qualified later on. I said there is possibility that 
Congress may, after all, set forth certain guidelines to be 
followed with respect to Section 7, if the circumstances 
should warrant because the wordings in Section 7 do 
not indicate subject to such guidelines as are expressly 
indicated in Section 6. 

MR. ROMULO. Therefore, statutory construction 
may dictate later that the authority of Congress is 
limited only to Section 6; so I think we have to clarify 
that. 

MR. NOLLEDO. As far as I am concerned, there is no 
need to clarify the same because I feel that the intent is 
to respect the customs and traditions of the indigenous 
communities. 

MR. ROMULO. But this talks about contributions 
unique, distinct and exclusive to them; meaning, that 
these are a unique type of taxes. This is a different type 
of tax which, I take it, is already accepted in the indi- 
genous communities. So, if the wordings do not make it 
clear that Congress may enact laws with regard to these 
unique, distinct and exclusive charges, one may be 
depriving Congress of that right. My other question 
precisely is: What are these unique, distinct and 
exclusive levies? 

MR. NOLLEDO. That may create some judicial 
questions or cases which our courts may decide ac- 
cordingly. 

MR. ROMULO. That is not so if I read the rest of this 
provision. Such things will be decided by the judicial 
system which will be created within each region. 


MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, that judicial system itself will 
come into operation when questions of this nature as 
may be arising from Section 7 may be presented to the 
courts. 

MR. ROMULO. So, the national government, 
whether it is the legislature or the executive, will be 
completely left out of this question. My point is that I 
do not know what is referred to. What kind of taxes are 
these? Will the Gentleman give me an example? 

MR. NOLLEDO. We discussed this in the Committee 
and Commissioner Alonto made some examples because 
there are areas where some contributions are traditional. 
For example, they may arise from relationship of mar- 
riage or relationship between parents and children even 
if they are already emancipated. We did not give specific 
examples, but customs and traditions can be proved 
according to the Civil Code by the generally accepted 
rules of evidence. When someone questions the validity 
of the imposition, tlien, as I said, a judicial question 
may crop up. But in the meantime, these are voluntary 
acts on the part of the members of the indigenous com- 
munities and we do not expect cases to arise therefrom. 

MR. ROMULO. In Section 8, local taxes referred to 
relate, I would take it, to what is provided in Section 6. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I beg the Gentleman’s pardon. 

MR. ROMULO. Local taxes referred to in Section 8, 

I would assume, are those taxes which are allowed under 
Section 6. Is that correct? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes. 

MR. ROMULO. Therefore, they have been previously 
subjected to guidelines from the legislature, 

MR. NOLLEDO. Should the legislature decide to do 
so. 

MR. ROMULO. On the other hand, it would not refer 
merely to local taxes which are collected locally such as 
real estate tax. 

MR. NOLLEDO. It depends on the provisions of the 
law involved because in the case of real estate taxes, 
local government units are entitled to a share. That may 
possibly fall under the last sentence. 

MR. ROMULO. Yes, as provided by law, under 
present law. However, when we talk of a share in the 
proceeds of exploitation and development of the 
national wealth within their respective areas 

MR. NOLLEDO. That was adopted from the Ople 
resolution. I would prefer that Commissioner Ople 
answer that question. 


178 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


MR. ROMULO. Yes, then let me pose my question. 
That is neither referred to in Section 6 nor in the first 
part of Section 8; therefore, how is this to be decided 
or implemented and by whom? Is this now going to be 
decided exclusively by the legislature of the auto- 
nomous region? 


MR. ROMULO. Yes, thank you. I am not really 
arguing the share. All I wanted to know is who will 
decide and the Gentleman seems to say that it is 
Congress. 

MR. OPLE. Congress will decide. 


MR. OPLE. Madam President, the issue has to do 
with Section 8 on page 2 of Committee Report No. 2 1 : 

Local taxes shall belong exclusively to local governments 
and they shall likewise be entitled to share in the proceeds 
of the exploitation and development of the national wealth 
within their respective areas. 


Just to cite specific examples, in the case of timber- 
land within the area of jurisdiction of the Province of 
Quirino or the Province of Aurora, we feel that the local 
governments ought to share in whatever revenues are 
generated from this particular natural resource which is 
dso considered a national resource in a proportion to be 
determined by Congress. This may mean sharing not 
with the local government but with the local popula- 
hon. The geothermal plant in the Macban, Makiling- 
Banahaw area in Laguna, the Tiwi Geothermal Plant in 
Albay, there is a sense in which the people in these 
areas, hosting the physical facility based on the re- 
sources ound under the ground in their area which are 
considered national wealth, should participate in terms 
re^onable rebates on the cost of power that they 
^y. his is true of the Maria Cristina area in Central 
Mindanao, for example. May I point out that in the 
revious government, this has always been a very 
• ^ subject of Cabinet debates. Are the people 

n the locality, where God chose to locate His bounty, 

, reasonable modest sharing of this 

with the national government? Why should the national 
government claim all the revenues arising from them? 
tvTf '^sual reply of the technocrats at that time is 
a ere must be uniform treatment of all citizens 
regar ess of where God’s gifts are located, whether 
e ow the ground or above the ground. This, of course, 
as led to popular disenchantment. In Albay, for 
example, the government then promised a 20-percent 
rebate m power because of the contributions of the 
iwi plant to the Luzon grid. Although this was 
ordered, I remember that the Ministry of Finance, toge- 
t er with the National Power Corporation, refused to 
There is a bigger economic principle be- 
hind this the pnnciple of equity. If God chose to locate 

sources of hydroelectric power in 

Cordillera, 

fuel adiuQtmpnt t ° national government impose 

rative advatitage ^ven“Io°the'' 

through these resources" So It"” “ ^ 'ocalUKS 
8 .U , in that sense that 

under Section 8. the local populations, if not the local 

governments should have a share of whatever national 
proceeds may be realized from this natural wealth of the 
nation located withm their jurisdictions. 


MR. ROMULO. That is my whole point, not the local 
legislative assembly but the national Congress. 

MR. OPLE. Yes, this will require a national policy 
that only Congress can establish. 

MR. ROMULO. As to Section 9, in view of the Chair- 
man’s answers to Commissioner Rama, I would assume 
that not only are the seeds of federalism implanted in 
Section 9 but other regions are actually encouraged to 
become autonomous; is that correct? Is that the sense of 
the Committee? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President. That is why 
we mentioned here specifically Muslim Mindanao and 
the Cordilleras because we feel that these will serve as 
models should Congress decide to fully federalize the 
Republic of the Philippines. I believe that we must do 
so, if we are to go far and if we are to progress. 

MR. ROMULO. So, Section 9 really authorizes 
Congress to federate the Philippines if it so wishes? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, we give discretion to the 
Congress. 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, I have a slight disagree- 
ment with the Chairman of the Committee. I would like 
to accept this as a statement of aspiration, but I do not 
think the committee report is sending a definitive signal 
to the future that we ought to federalize. If that is the 
extent of our aspiration, in the proper course, I would 
invite the Chairman to develop a more explicit provi- 
sion. That, however, will take us to another domain of 
public policy which may result in an overhaul of this 
Constitution and I just wanted to call attention to that. 

MR. ROMULO. Yes, in my opinion, that is a very 
serious question and it would involve momentous 
decisions. If that is what we are being called upon to 
decide by Section 9, I think it better be made clear to 
all of us. We are, in fact, implanting through Section 9 
the possibility of federating this country. 

MR. OPLE. I do not know if the Chairman agrees. 

MR. NOLLEDO. If that is the intent of the Commit- 
tee or perhaps the possible intent of the Commission, I 
do not think it is expressly necessary to say so. We are 
only opening the avenue to the possibility because. . . 

MR. OPLE. I think what we want to establish is a 
kind of maximum decentralization, short of federaliza- 
tion, at this moment in history. 


MONDAY, AUGUST n, 1986 


179 


MR. ROMULO. Thdt sounds like someone being half 
pregnant. 

MR. OPLE. No, that is what local autonomy ought to 
mean. 

MR. ROMULO. That is what I am trying to say. Is 
the Gentleman talking of local autonomy or is he 
talking of federalism? 

MR. OPLE. Local autonomy, Madam President. 

MR. ROMULO. Thank you. 

Section 12 enumerates a great many powers which 
will be granted to the autonomous region and these are: 
powers of taxation, development, health, school, pro- 
tection of the environment, et cetera. All these require 
financial and economic resources. Has the Committee in 
its study determined whether these regions are econo- 
mically viable by themselves? 

MR. NOLLEDO. In that case, we are leaving it to 
Congress to determine whether or not it is viable to 
create autonomous regions out of the particular 
provinces and cities applying for regional autonomy. 

MR. ROMULO. And I take it, because of the man- 
date, whether viable or not, one will expect the rest of 
the country to contribute to the viability of these 
autonomous regions through their taxes. Is that correct? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Not necessarily, because whether it 
is viable or not, I think that is a relative question. 
Congress may provide the necessary incentives or the 
necessary support when it complies with the mandate 
set forth in this Constitution. 

Commissioner Bennagen would like to talk on this. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes. 

MR. ROMULO. Let me ask then the other question: 
Therefore, is Congress free to determine whether the 
applicant for regional autonomy is viable economically, 
and if it is not, then Congress may refuse to grant 
autonomy? Is that the application? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Congress may delay the grant. 

MR. ROMULO. Delay? 

MR. NOLLEDO. It may delay, in the meantime, and 
it may not grant immediately until viability is proven. 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, in connection with 
that, right now the existing law on local governments 
provides that one of the standards to be met for creating 
a new local government unit such as a municipality or a 
province is the economic viability which is often quanti- 
fiable and is so quantified. 


MR. ROMULO. Exactly. 

MR. OPLE. And, therefore, in enacting the organic 
act, as mandated here for an autonomous region, the 
capacity for self-reliance, including financial self- 
reliance, will be one of the standards that will pre- 
sumably be laid down by Congress on the basis of 
existing law. 

MR. ROMULO. Although it is conspicuously absent 
in Section 9. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog- 
nized. 

I 

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes. For the information of 
Commissioner Romulo, at least, in the case of both the 
Cordillera and the Bangsa Moro, we have statistics to 
show their economic viability based on the investigation 
of existing natural resources in the area as well as the 
human resources. 

MR. ROMULO. And thus, they do not need the 
support of the national government? 

MR. BENNAGEN. That has to be taken care of again 
in relation to other existing provisions as already 
pointed out by Commissioners Ople and Nolledo. We do 
not see here a complete separation from the central 
government, but rather an efficient working relationship 
between the autonomous region and the central govern- 
ment. We see this as an effective partnership, not a 
separation. 

MR. ROMULO. Therefore, complete autonomy is not 
really thought of as complete independence. 

MR. OPLE. We define it as a measure of self- 
government within the larger political framework of the 
nation. 

MR. ROMULO. Yes. And, therefore, relations of 
dependency when it comes to economic and financial 
matters may be taken into account. 

MR. OPLE. To the extent of its political subordina- 
tion to the larger sovereignty and especially keeping in 
mind the very depressed conditions of these regions, I 
would not foreclose the possibility of Congress desiring 
to extend national support, especially in the beginning 
years, to regions with autonomy. 

MR. ALONTO. And besides that. Madam President, 
we would like to inform the honorable Commissioner 
that even in a real and strictly federal system of govern- 


180 


MONDAY, AUGUST 1 1 , 1 986 


ment like the United States, economic relation between 
the central government and the state has never been 
removed. 


MR. ROMULO. That is correct. 

MR. ALONTO. There is no complete independence 
or autonomy, as the honorable Commissioner has 
mentioned. 


MR. ROMULO. And, therefore, it allows the federal 
government to intervene and to regulate the states when 
their rights begin to disappear. I just want to make that 
point. 

Section 12 (5) talks of establishment, maintenance 
and administration of schools in the autonomous 
region. Basically, I have the same question. I assume 
again that the cost of maintenance will be borne by the 
autonomous region. If not, and even if these are main- 
tained, to what extent may this educational system be 
subordinated or coordinated with the policies of the 
national government with regard to education? 


MR. BENNAGEN. There could be a number of varia 
om on this in relation to financial responsibility. Ii 
cou end up to a secondary or tertiary level. But we ar( 
more concerned with curricular content, with what i: 
emg aught, that is, an educational program should bf 
responave to the particularities of the region and the 
peop e s aspirations. So that in recognition of the cul 

chill diversity, the central govemmeni 

snau not impose a uniform educational system. 

chi^ mechanics, some form of working relation- 
on Jtif^ established between the central govemmeni 

and the regional governments. 


not^^ I ®ut not to the exclusion 

national government’s educational poUcies. 


MR. BENNAGEN. No, definitely not. 


the Madrasah system where Islamic traditions are 
taught. 

MR. ROMULO. There are other speakers; so, 
although I have some more questions, I will reserve my 
right to ask them if they are not covered by the other 
speakers. I have only two questions. 

I heard one of the Commissioners say that local 
autonomy already exists in the Muslim region; it is 
working very well; it has, in fact, diminished a great deal 
of the problems. So, my question is: since that already 

exists, why do we have to go into something new? 

• 

MR. OPLE. May I answer that on behalf of Chairman 
Nolledo. Commissioner Yusup Abubakar is right that 
certain definite steps have been taken to implement the 
provisions of the Tripoli Agreement with respect to an 
autonomous region in Mindanao. This is a good first 
step, but there is no question that this is merely a partial 
response to the Tripoli Agreement itself and to the 
fuller standard of regional autonomy contemplated in 
that agreement, and now by state policy. 

For example, most of the functions listed here are 
not yet being exercised by the regional autonomous 
government in Mindanao, and that is the reason for the 
continuing negotiation between the Philippine govern- 
ment and the Moro National Liberation Front and its 
allied organizations in order to insure that the stand- 
ards of autonomy and its effectiveness will rise to that 
level contemplated in the Tripoli Agreement. 

MR. ROMULO. For my final question. Madam 
President, because I think it is a serious one and I do not 
wish to have it misunderstood. It seems to have been 
implied that the choice of the Commission is either to 
accept these provisions and have peace or we reject 
these provisions and have war. Is that really the dilemma 
of the Committee in presenting this to us? 


MR. ROMULO. Because I suppose that while we 
want to preserve indigenous culture, et cetera, there is 
another value that we wish to promote, and that is 
national umty. 

MR. BENNAGEN. That is right. 

•A ^^^ULO. And integration to some extent and 
identity. 


nrinciDlev Vh'.r*'"- i" •l'« ^tateme 

pnnaples, that we recognize diversity within the fi 
work of national unity. This holds tiie in many sp 

1 educatior 

also of health and even of infrastructure. 

MR. OPLE In the case of Muslim Mindanao, Mi 
President, schools here can refer more specifical 


MR. OPLE. It is not the Committee but it is history 
that presents this choice to our people. I do not think 
it can be denied that more than 100,000 lives have 
already been lost. There would have been many more 
thousands of lives lost, if there was no ceasefire in 1976 
and 1977. That Agreement, of course, has suspended 
hostilities for a time. 

But I think we have heard from our colleagues from 
Mindanao about the new gravity of the situation there. 
This explains the urgency with which a local ceasefire in 
Sulu was concluded the other day, and the general 
sense of relief that greeted it on the part of the national 
government. But that is merely a partial settlement. The 
bigger settlement will be negotiated next month in 
Jeddah, when the President of the Philippines sends a 
delegation to negotiate with the MNLF within the 
purview of the next meeting of the Organization of the 
Islamic Conference. 


MONDAY, AUGUST n, 1986 


181 


So, in a sense, we are still threatened with war. 
Madam President. 

MR. ROMULO. Yes. So, it is the Commissioner’s 
position that we really have no choice with regard to 
this provision. 

MR. OPLE. We do not want to appear as though this 
Committee is intimidating anyone about his choice. 
But what we are saying is that indeed a stark choice. . . 

MR. ROMULO. That is the logical conclusion of the 
statement that I have heard. 

MR. OPLE. Yes. 

MR. ROMULO. That if local autonomy will not be 
agreed upon as stipulated in this committee report, our 
choice will be war. If that is so, the Committee is, there- 
fore, not giving anybody a choice. 

MR. OPLE. We are not adducing our opinion, but the 
facts bring themselves forward in terms of this new 
situation. 

MR. ROMULO. Yes. 

MR. OPLE. There are threats from the Moro National 
Liberation Front which cannot be lightly dismissed. 
They are prepared to resume full hostilities, and on the 
part of our government, it is becoming a fraternal 
response. 

MR. ROMULO. In the end, the bottom line, which I 
think I am hearing from the Committee individually 
or collectively, is that we have a very small thin choice 
with regard to autonomy as expressed here or we will 
have war. 

MR. OPLE. I am afraid the Gentleman has described 
the stark truth of the situation. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog- 
nized. 

MR. BENNAGEN. I would like to supplement the 
statement already made by Commissioner Ople. The 
choice is not something that we, in our own subjective 
wishes, would like to present in the provisions; it is a 
choice that is presented to us by the dynamics of social 
change and the dynamics of history which tell us at this 
particular point in time that such a decision has to be 
made. And we only wish that it could be made within 
the framework of national unity and democratic pro- 
cesses because there are other options that are open to 
the people beyond which we will have no domain. 


MR. RAMA. Madam President, Commissioner Bemas 
wishes to be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bernas is recog- 
nized. 

FR. BERNAS. Madam President, the questions I have 
are fundamentally follow-up questions on some of the 
questions raised by Commissioners Trenas and Romulo. 

I would like to begin from the recently decided case 
of Negros del Norte. The Gentleman said that the 
principles enunciated in that Negros decision are still 
applicable under this provision. 

MR. OPLE. Yes. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes, Madam President. 

'^R. BERNAS. However, I notice that the word 
“directly” was added in this committee report whereas 
under the 1973 Constitution, it said: “In a plebiscite 
called for the purpose in the unit or units affected.” 
Does the word “directly” add anything or modify the 
principles in the Negros decision? 

MR. NOLLEDO. To my mind, the word “directly” 
does not change the substance of the ruling. 

FR. BERNAS. So, it was not the intention of the 
Committee to change the substance of the ruling. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President. 

FR. BERNAS. To go into greater detail, for pur- 
poses, for instance, of the creation of a barrio or the 
abolition of a barrio, would we need a plebiscite of the 
entire municipality? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, because the barrio will be 
taken out of the municipality. 

FR. BERNAS. Yes. And for the purpose of the 
creation of a city or a municipality within a province, 
would we have a plebiscite in the province? 

MR. NOLLEDO. That is the implication. 

FR. BERNAS. And if it is a question of the creation 
of a province, it would involve a plebiscite within the 
province or provinces from which that is being cut off? 

MR. NOLLEDO. The Gentleman must be implying an 
existence of a regional government. 

FR. BERNAS. Or if it is part of a region, then the 
plebiscite would involve the entire region. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I think so. 


182 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


FR. BERNAS. But if it comes to the creation of an 
autonomous region, how widespread will the plebiscite 
be? Would it be national? 


the legislature nor the elected local officials but a more 
representative cross-section of the population should be 
involved. 


MR. NOLLEDO. That is a very good question. In that 
case, it should only be the people within the units that 
will form the region itself. That is my opinion. 

FR. BERNAS. But that departs from the principle of f 
the Negros case because in the Negros case, it is not just 
the people that were included in the new territory but 
the people from which the territory is being carved out, 
as it were. If we are creating an autonomous region 
within the nation, in effect, we reaUy are carving out a 
territory from the entire nation, so it would seem that 
logically the entire nation should be involved in a 
plebiscite. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President, that is the 
consequence, but it would be unwieldy if we will ask 
the entire country to participate. We are not taking out 
the region from the country; we are forming an auto- 
nomous independent region. And I think the people 
who are directly affected are those actually residing 
within that region. 


FR. BERNAS. Yes, that is the reason I am bringing 
this up. This thing involves some rather far-reaching 
consequences also in relation to the issue raised by 
Commissioner Romulo with respect to federalism. Are 
we, in effect, creating new categories of laws? Generally, 
we have statutes and constitutional provisions. Is this 
organic act something in between the two or is it some- 
thing equivalent to a constitutional provision? If it is 
going to be equivalent to a constitutional provision, it 
would seem to me that the formulation of the provisions 
of the organic act will have to be done by the legisla- 
ture, acting as a constituent assembly, and, therefore, 
subject to the provisions of the Article on Amend- 
ments. That is the point that I am tr>'ing to bring up. In 
effect, if we opt for federalism, it would really involve 
an act of the National Assembly or Congress acting 
as a constituent assembly and present amendments 
to this Constitution, and the end product itself would 
be a constitutional provision which would only be 
amendable according to the processes indicated in the 
Constitution. 


■ ERNAS. But the rest of the nation is alsi 

a ec e m the same way that when we create a provinc 

ou 0 M existing province, it is the entire province tha 

frrftn portion that is being cut of 
irom that province. 


We can remedy that by an amend- 
t n It seems that there is a direct contradiction. 

FR. BERNAS. The reason I am asking this is not to 
ave a quarrel with the Committee or anybody but just 
or the sake of clarity. Is the Committee talking about 
the creation of an organic act? 

MR. NOLLEDO. We are talking about the passing of 
an organic act. 


R. BERNAS. Correct. When the legislature creates 
IS organic act, will it be acting as a constituent as- 
sembly or as a legislative body? 


• NOLLEDO. In relation to that, there is a pr 
se amendment that the Committee will present : 
ue ime. o, if the Commissioner will not mind, I w: 
reserve my answer to that question. 


FR. BERNAS. Can the 
answer? 


sponsor give us a hint as to his 


MR. BENNAGEN. Since the question of autonomy is 
a matter of exchanging importance to the occupants of 
the autonomous region, we would suggest that all 
sectors of that autonomous region be involved, not only 


MR. OPLE. Madam President, may I express my 
personal opinion in this respect. 

I think to require Congress to act as a constituent 
body before enacting an organic act would be to raise an 
autonomous region to the same level as the sovereign 
people of the whole country. And I think the powers of 
Congress should be quite sufficient in enacting a law, 
even if it is now exalted to the level of an organic act 
for the purpose of providing a basic law for an auto- 
nomous region without having to transform itself into a 
constituent assembly. We are dealing still with one 
subordinate subdivision of the State even if it is now 
. vested with certain autonomous powers on which its 
own legislature can pass laws. 

FR. BERNAS. So, the questions I have raised so far 
with respect to this organic act are; What segment of 
the population will participate in the plebiscite? In what 
capacity would the legislature be acting when it passes 
this? Will it be as a constituent assembly or merely a 
legislative body? What is the nature, therefore, of this 
organic act in relation to ordinary statutes and the 
Constitution? Finally, if we are going to amend this 
organic act, what process will be followed? 

MR. NOLLEDO. May I answer that, please, in the 
light of what is now appearing in our report. 

First, only the people who are residing in the units 
y' composing the region should be allowed to participate 
in the plebiscite. Second, the organic act has the charac- 
ter of a charter passed by Congress, not as a constituent 
assembly, but as an ordinary legislature and, therefore, 
the organic act will still be subject to amendments in the 


MONDAY, AUGUST 1 1 , 1 986 


183 


ordinary legislative process as now constituted, unless 
the Gentleman has another purpose. 

FR. BERNAS. But with plebiscite again. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Those who will participate in the 
plebiscite are those who are directly affected, the in- 
habitants of the units constitutive of the region. 

FR. BERNAS. So, what I gather from that is that as 
far as the creation of the autonomous region is con- 
cerned, the Committee is really departing from the 
principle established in the Negros del Norte case. 


citizens of the Philippines, they continue to be treated as 
second class citizens. 

In spite of the Bangsa Moro’s history of struggle against 
exploitation by the Christian majority, they still have con- 
fidence in the new government under President Aquino, in 
whom they repose their high hopes for justice and recogni- 
tion of their legitimate status and rights. This positive out- 
look springs from the knowledge that even the late Ninoy 
Aquino had openly stood in support of the Bangsa Moro 
autonomy. It is their hope that President Corazon Aquino 
shall also stand by her late husband’s conviction and 
commitment to the cause of the Bangsa Moro. 

Thank you. 


MR. OPLE. To that extent. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Truly to that extent. 


MR. RAMA. I ask. Madam President, that Com- 
missioner de los Reyes be recognized. 


FR. BERNAS. Thank you, Madam President. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you. Madam PresideijL-'^ 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, may I ask that Com- 
missioner Uka be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Uka is recognized. 

MR. UKA. Madam President and members of the 
Committee, permit me to read a portion of a paper sent 
to me on the subject of the Bangsa Moro autonomy, and 
I quote: 

Autonomy is an expression of the Bangsa Moro’s convic- 
tion of its being a viable alternative to separation, and 
reposes their hope in the new Charter now being drafted as 
one which shall grant recognition to their historical status, 
inherent rights, and aspirations. 

The fundamental premises urging a constitutional grant 
of autonomy to the Bangsa Moro are; The Bangsa Moro is a 
historically and culturally distinct and separate nation from 
the Christian majority and deserves this status under the uni- 
versal principle of self-determination; and Islam is the 
religion and way of life of the Bangsa Moro which requires 
a separate political and administrative framework from the 
Western concept and principle of separation of church and 
state. The latter is similarly important because the Bangsa 
Moro embraces Islam as the central theme, not only of his 
religious practices, but all other aspects of life including the 
government and the economy. Hence, a political fusion 
with the Christian majority is workable only under a frame- 
work of political autonomy which shall allow tlie full 
flowering of the genius of the Bangsa Moro in the context 
of his Islamic culture. 

Why does the Bangsa Moro insist on autonomy? Because 
it is theirs by legal and historical right. Before the coming 
of the Spaniards in 1521, they were already a sovereign and 
independent nation. However, they were forced into joining 
the Philippine Republic after they were promised justice, 
equality and fairness. But after more than 51 years as 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de los Reyes is 
recognized. 


MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President, I would 
like to differ from Commissioner Bemas’ view that 
there is a deviation from the doctrine in the Negros 
del Norte case when it comes to the creation of an 
autonomy. I think there is no deviation because we 
are only creating another form of local government 
and there is no portion of the territory of the nation 
that is being divided or separated. Therefore, only the 
people affected will vote. While in the Negros del 
Norte case, a new province is being carved out of an 
existing province, which means a diminution of that 
existing province and for which reason the whole 
province will vote. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I would like to support that theory, 
but it seems that the difference is very minimal. And I 
think Commissioner Bemas has a point there. However, 
as fsr as I am concerned, I would like to support the 
Gentleman s theory because it really supports our 
report. 


MR. DE LOS REYES. In answer to the questions 
of Commissioner Trenas where he stated that the old 
provision in the 1973 Constitution, which makes 
highly urbanized cities independent of the province 
is already being repealed because it is his intention 
again to make highly urbanized cities part of the 
province. 


highly urbanized cities are citip? • • 

1 +;^., wies with a minimun 

population of 150,000, as certified by the Nationa 

Census and Statistics Office and with the latest annua 

income of at least P30 milhon f u 

. f T'- uiiiiion, as certified by th( 

Minister of Finance; whereas the other city is knoln a 
he coniponent city which does not have that qualifica 

nnn has a population of less thai 

50,000 and Its annual earning is less than P30 million. 

Gentleman to know that these highl) 
urbanized cities are better off as independent citie; 


184 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


rather than being made part of the province. They are 
independent; they earn a lot; they even earn more than 
the province; and, moreover, they do not contribute 
anything to the province. For this reason, would the 
Gentleman like to reassess or rethink his stand on the 
matter? I think the present setup where highly urban- 
ized cities are separate from the province should be 
maintained. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I think the question of Com- 
missioner Trenas is predicated on the principle of 
whether or not the population of the highly urbanized 
cities can participate in the election of officials of the 
province. In all other cases, the provisions cited by the 
Gentleman; namely, Section 166 of the Local Govern- 
ment Code, which is Batas Pambansa Big. 337, may still 
stand. I know as a fact that there is a future amendment 
to be presented possibly by Commissioner Napoleon 
Rama where inhabitants of highly urbanized cities 
should be allowed to vote for elective provincial offi- 
cials because there was a claim that this was done by 
Mr. Marcos in order that the highly urbanized cities 
composed mostly of intellectuals who are fighting him 
should not participate in the election of provincial 
officials because of the intent to control elective 
provincial officials. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. So, under the Gentleman’s 

eory, we will revert to a situation where the Cities of 
rasay and Caloocan and, I think, even Quezon City will 

^e o vote for the Governor of Rizal. Is that the 
mtention? 


NOLLEDO. I think Commissioner Rama would 
like to comment on that. 

REYES. Commissioner Rama’s situa- 
tion IS different because that is Cebu City. 

MR. NOLLEDO. No, I would like to give my opinion 
after him. 


MR. RAMA. I would like to explain why I filed t 
resolution. Traditionally, since time immemorial, C( 
. voting for its provincial officials. It r 

e ditterent here in Manila because for a long time 
greater Manila area was not voting for governorship. 

JUS w^t to have that practice because there 
gerrymandenng in the case of Cebu. 


Rama wiS^h^^^ t- answer of Commissic 

be^ a Manila area 

length of ttae. for a consider; 


MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President, in Section 1 , 
the^ Gentleman stated that the different local units and 
political subdivisions are provinces, cities, municipals 
ties, barrios and autonomous regions. Does this mean 


that Congress cannot create another form of political 
subdivision, for example, a metro government, like the 
present Metro Manila government? Does the report of 
the Gentleman’s Committee mean that we are doing 
away with the Metro Manila government and that we are 
prohibiting future Congress from creating such a form 
of local government unit forever? 

MR. NOLLEDO. I would like to answer the last 
question because it is more specific. That was the intent 
of the Committee. Because of overlapping of functions, 
we feel that highly urbanized cities can stand alone 
wihout the need of forming a supergovernment, like the 
Metro Manila Commission. Besides, we provided in 
Section 5 of Committee Report No. 21 that local 
government units may group themselves, consolidate or 
coordinate their efforts, services and resources for pur- 
poses commonly beneficial to them. That, to my mind, 
is enough basis to form a coordinating agency, for 
example, to coordinate the basic services and efforts of 
areas that are covered within the metropolitan area of 
Manila. In other words, we are doing away with the 
metropolitan governments even if the draft of the 
University of the Philippines recommended such kind of 
government. We did not adopt the provisions on metro- 
politan government, and this is in accord with the 
suggestion of the League of Governors and City Mayors. 

MR. DE LOS REYES. So, upon the approval of ratifi- 
cation of this new Constitution, assuming that the 
committee report will be adopted, the Metro Manila 
Commission and the Metro Manila government shall be 
deemed abolished. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Not necessarily because there is a 
provision in the Transitory Provisions that existing laws 
may still continue until changed or repealed by the 
forthcoming Congress. 

But to my mind — I am speaking individually, not on 
behalf of the Committee — P.D. No. 824 that created 
the Metro Manila government was really contrary to the 
Constitution, as I stated in my sponsorship speech. But 
because the Supreme Court of the Philippines, in the 
case of Lopez vs. COMELEC and Lopez vs. Metro 
Manila Commission ruled that P.D. No. 824 is constitu- 
tional in view of the 1984 Amendment to the Constitu- 
tion where the National Capital Region was considered 
as a separate region by itself. In fact, I think the 
Supreme Court found difficulty in justifying the consti- 
tutionality of P.D. No. 824. 

In view of that ruling and our belief adhering to the 
rule of law that the Supreme Court, whether right or 
wrong, is still correct, then P.D. No. 824 still exists until 
repealed by the Congress of the Philippines. 

Thank you. 

SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I move for a suspen- 
sion of the session for a few minutes. 


MONDAY, AUGUST n, 1986 


185 


THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended. 

It was 4:16 p.m. 

RESUMPTION OF SESSION 

At 4:51 p.m., the session was resumed. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed. 

The Acting Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. ROMULO. Madam President, the next inter- 
pellator is Commissioner Rodrigo. May he be recog- 
nized? 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog- 
nized. 

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, I have a few 
questions for clarification. Section 16 provides that the 
legislature within a limited period of time shall pass 
organic acts for the autonomous regions of Mindanao 
and Cordillera. My question is: Are these organic acts 
uniform for the two regions or may the legislature pass 
one organic act for the Cordillera and a different organic 
act for Mindanao? 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, Section 16 says that 
the legislature will pass the organic acts for the auto- 
nomous regions of Mindanao and the Cordilleras; by 
that, I suppose that there will be separate organic acts. 

MR. RODRIGO. Separate? 

MR. OPLE. Yes, for the two autonomous regions. 

MR. RODRIGO. So, it is possible for the legislature 
to give more autonomy to the Cordillera than to Min- 
danao and vice-versa. 

MR. OPLE. Within the framework of the constitu- 
tional provisions. Madam President. 

MR. RODRIGO. This section mentions autonomous 
region of Mindanao. Does that refer to the whole of 
Mindanao? 

MR. OPLE. It refers to the so-called Muslim Minda- 
nao in the context of the' Moro homeland mentioned in 
the Tripoli Agreement; but in saying this, I do not want 
it understood that we are limiting the power of Congress 
to determine the autonomous areas. 

MR. RODRIGO. The Tripoli Agreement, if I remem- 
ber right, comprises not only Mindanao but Palawan 
and Sulu, am I right? 

MR. OPLE. Yes, Madam President. The original Moro 
homeland consists of 13 provinces which, however, in 


the late 1970s had been reduced to about 10 with 
Davao, Cotabato and Palawan being taken out of the 
original area. 

MR. RODRIGO. But under Section 1 6 the legislature 
has the power to determine which areas wiU comprise 
this region. It might specify only a few provinces in the 
Island of Mindanao plus a few cities, is that right? 

MR. OPLE. Yes, Madam President. By these provi- 
sions, we do not want to limit the power of Congress 
in determining the areas of the autonomous regions. 

MR. RODRIGO. After enacting the organic acts for 
Mindanao and the Cordillera, the legislature may then 
enact other organic acts for different regions in the 
Philippines. I heard Commissioner NoUedo mention a 
possible autonomous region in Ilocos and Bicol. 

My question is: Will the organic act for Ilocos and 
Bicol be uniform? Or can they again be different from 
each other? 

MR. OPLE. Madam President, I may have a slight 
disagreement with my colleagues in the Committee 
concerning the entitlement of the Ilocos and Bicol 
regions to the same terms of regional autonomy which 
are proposed to be conferred upon Muslim Mindanao 
and the Cordillera on the basis that the Ilocos, the Bicol, 
the Tagalog provinces, the Visayan provinces and some 
Mindanao provinces constitute the so-called “dominant 
groups” in the Philippine social and territorial structure 
and, therefore, autonomy given to one region among 
these “dominant groups,” the so-called traditional 
Christian Filipino groups, should be accessible to every 
other such region. The reason why Muslim Mindanao 
and the Cordillera are claiming autonomy is that 
they have a certain uniqueness and what they con- 
sider an inferior relationship with the dominant 
groups in society which are the Christian lowland 
groups, including the Tagalogs, the Ilocanos, the 
Visayans, the Pangasinenses, the Pampanguenos and 
those in the Christian provinces in Mindanao. And so, 
I think the specific context for the quanta of autonomy 
for these dominant groups should be uniform. Commit- 
tee Report No. 21 refers principally to the nonautono- 
mous regions which constitute the entire infrastructure 
of our local governments. 

MR. RODRIGO. But may regions populated by 
Filipinos whom the Gentleman calls 'dominant groups*’ 
be also converted into autonomous regions? 

MR. OPLE. According to Chairman Nolledo, they 
may invoke the rights of autonomy. 

MR. RODRIGO. Since Commissioner Nolledo is the 
Chairman, is this then the official stand of the Commit- 
tee? 


186 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


MR. OPLE. I think the Committee would like to play 
it safe. If Chairman Nolledo agrees, we will say that in 
the case of the dominant groups — meaning, most of the 
nation, except for the historically disadvantaged groups 
with their own unique cultures and traditions — what 
should apply is Committee Report No. 2 1 . 

MR. RODRIGO. So, they may not be converted into 
autonomous regions? 

MR. OPLE. Not in the immediate future, not within 
the immediate provisions of this Constitution, unless 
there is a constitutional amendment later that would 
make available certain federal features or powers of 
government to all the regions other than the auto- 
nomous regions. 


from one another? May the organic act for Ilocos grant 
more autonomy to Docos than to Bicol and vice-versa? 

MR. NOLLEDO. In certain areas, they may be 
uniform. For example, the setting up of a regional legis- 
lature and an executive department, but taking into 
account the particular characteristics of the region 
because there may be some differences. 

We will notice the analogy that several banks, for 
example, \vere granted congressional charters like the 
charters of the PNB and the DBP. Most of the provi- 
sions are uniform, but there are certain provisions where 
uniformity could not possibly be attained. 

MR. RODRIGO. Autonomous regions are, I think, 
very different from banks. 


MR. RODRIGO. We have on record the statement of 
Chairman Nolledo that under this provision, if the 
Ilocos region and the Bicol region want to have auto- 
nomy, they may do so. 

MR. OPLE. I thmk he said this in the context of a 
statement of aspirations which later on may follow. 

MR RODRIGO. This is very important so I want a 
definite answer. 

Under these constitutional provisions, if they are 
there be autonomous regions outside 
of Mindanao and the Cordillera? This is very important. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President, under 
action 9. That is why it will be noticed that in the 
comment of Commissioner Rama, he was recommend- 
mg that ethnic considerations be not the sole considera- 
lon m the formation of autonomous regions. That is 
w y we mcluded economic and communal factors, 

et cetera, instead of concentrating on ethnic character- 
istics. 


MR. RODRIGO. So, this is not a mere declaration of 
aspiration. This is actually authorized by this proposed 
provision. 


MR. NOLLEDO. No, I am just giving an example, by 
analogy, that when Congress grants several charters, we 
cannot bind Congress by saying that the rule of uni- 
formity should be followed in all cases. 

MR. RODRIGO. Let me then pursue this point. May 
Samar and Leyte later on also be declared autonomous 
regions, aside from Ilocos and Bicol? And after that 
may Southern Tagalog be declared an autonomous 
region also? 

MR. NOLLEDO. I did not get the question. 

MR. RODRIGO. The Gentleman said that under this 
provision, Ilocos can be declared an autonomous re^on 
with its organic act enacted by the legislature; the Bicol 
region can be an autonomous region, with its organic act 
enacted by the legislature. So, I want to pursue this 
further. 

Let us say that Samar and Leyte want to be an auto- 
nomous region. Is it within the power of the legislature 
to declare them an autonomous region and enact its 
organic act? 

MR. NOLLEDO. It is up to the legislature because 
the question is somewhat vague in the latter part. 


MR. NOLLEDO. It can be interpreted as aspirations 
ecause later on certain regions can aspire for an appro- 

rpoir>n<f ^ declare themselves autonomous 

regions. 

to ^onv^r?^Wn^ legislature then, if it wants 

will enact the re ^ Bicol into autonomous regions. 
Will enact the requisite organic act*^ 


MR. RODRIGO. I will come back to my question. 
Do the two organic acts, one for Ilocos and the other 
for Bicol, have to be uniform or may they be different 


MR. RODRIGO. Is it within the power? 

MR. NOLLEDO. The Gentleman is talking of the 
organic act and also whether or not Congress can declare 
Samar and Layte, whose people are all Warays, an auto- 
nomous region. Should Congress so decide, why not? 

MR. RODRIGO. Yes, the two are inseparable, based 
on the proposed provisions that an autonomous region 
is created by enacting an organic act for that purpose. 

MR. NOLLEDO. And subject to the holding of the 
plebiscite. 

MR. RODRIGO. All right. How about Central 
Luzon? May we convert it into an autonomous region? 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


187 


MR. NOLLEDO. Why not? 

MR. RODRIGO. Southern Tagalog? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Why not? 

MR. RODRIGO. Central Visayas . . . and each of 
these will have its own different organic act. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes. If one will read the Constitu- 
tions of Switzerland, Spain and other countries — I 
mentioned these some few hours ago — one will notice 
that these regions were autonomous and granted 
separate legislatures and executive departments. 

MR. RODRIGO. Are they granted different auto- 
nomous powers, such that some cantons have more 
autonomous powers than other cantons? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Generally, they have the same 
powers. 

MR. RODRIGO. That is it. Why should we not also 
make it uniform in the Philippines, if we are going to 
have a semifederal system of government? Why should 
we favor one region, giving it more autonomy than 
another region? 

MR. NOLLEDO. That is why we are giving much 
leeway to Congress to determine in which provisions 
there must be uniformity, taking into account certain 
factors, like economic factors, ethnic characteristics and 
other idiosyncrasies of people living in different regions. 

MR. RODRIGO. So, there might come a time when 
half of the Philippines is composed of autonomous 
regions and the other half not autonomous. 

MR. NOLLEDO. It is possible, Madam President, and 
I dream for complete autonomy to different regions in 
the country. 

MR. RODRIGO. So, we will have a country which is 
half semifederal and half-unitary, is that it? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Because of the provision that before 
an autonomous region may exercise its powers there 
should be a charter to be enacted by the Congress, it is 
up for Congress to create such an alleged anomalous 
situation. If Congress so decides that only one-half of 
the country should be regionalized in the meantime, 
then I think there is no constitutional inhibition to do 
so. We should consider the fact that there is a need for a 
plebiscite and there is also a need for a charter or an 
organic act to be passed by Congress. Those factors 
indicate that possibility. Madam President. 

MR. RODRIGO. Yes, half semifederal and half- 
unitary, depending on Congress. 


MR. NOLLEDO. In that case, I think the tendency 
on the part of the other regions, if other autonomous 
regions have succeeded in their autonomy, would be to 
apply for their respective charters. 

MR. RODRIGO. If we want to make our country 
semifederal, why not make it obligatory for the whole 
country to be divided into autonomous regions so that 
we will have uniformity? In that way, there will be no 
favoritism and we will not be fragmented. 

MR. NOLLEDO. If the Constitutional Commission so 
decides, I will be the happiest man on earth. (Laughter) 

MR. RODRIGO. I am asking the Gentleman those 
questions to underscore the defects in their proposal. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, I take this 
opportunity to mention some things that are happening 
in the unitaiy' system. Please permit me, if the Gentle- 
man does not mind. 

MR. RODRIGO. I am through with my questions 
because there are others who want to interpellate. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. 

MR. NOLLEDO. In the meantime, as a continuing 
answer to the Gentleman’s questions . . . 

MR. RODRIGO. I will listen. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I talked to several governors and 
city mayors. They told me, “Mr. Nolledo, you know, 
when we go to the national government, we cannot 
find the Minister of Local Governments. Whether he is 
hiding or not, we do not know. We go to Malacanang; 
we do not find the President. The President is away or 
they talk to us and we tell them our local problems. 
They listen to us with sympathy but it seems that there 
are no solutions to our problems. We invoke certain 
implementing statutes; they tell us to wait. So, what 
happens is that we go back to our provinces and cities 
completely disgruntled and we entertain ill-feelings 
against the national government. We become helpless; 
we do not know what to do.” 

MR. RODRIGO. I would like to state that I am in 
favor of local autonomy. But if we will have local 
autonomy, let it be uniform all over the Philippines. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog- 
nized. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Let me just recall what transpired 
during the first meeting of the Committee on Local 
Governments, when the idea of autonomous region was 
first mentioned. 


188 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


I remember General de Castro reacting in the same 
manner that many of us are now reacting. And he said 
something Uke: What will prevent the other regions 
from asking for autonomy? I think my immediate 
answer was something like this: “Just because we have 
a law on divorce does not mean that everyone will seek 
divorce. It depends on whether or not the relationship 
will be so maintained, so that it is mutually beneficial.” 
And we are saying that the grant of regional autonomy 
here corrects an extremely uneven development across 
regions. We feel that the creation of regional autonomy 
will create a sufficient tension between regions, on one 
hand, and central government, on the other. That some 
kind of evening of the development process will take 
place. 

We are saying that the regional autonomy structure 
will facilitate that catching up with the development 
process in the more developed regions, because the 
regional autonomy structure will be more responsive to 
the particularities of the region, both culturally and 
geographically, which is to say ecologically. 

MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I ask that Com- 
missioner Davide be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog- 
nized. 

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you. Madam President. 

Would the Committee clarify certain matters? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Gladly. 

MR. DAVIDE. When the Committee speaks of auto- 
nomous region, could a region be any of the 13 regions 
now? Could it also be the traditional regions — Luzon, 
Visayas and Mindanao? 

MR. NOLLEDO. It is possible. Madam President. 

MR. DAVIDE. It could also be possible that a region 
which may be constituted under this is only a portion of 
any of the 1 3 regions. 

MR. NOLLEDO. It is possible. 

MR. DAVIDE. Since it could be possible that a region 
which was contemplated here may be a portion of any 
ot the existing region, it could only be a province. 

MR. NOLLEDO. That is a possibility. 

MR. DAVIDE. In short, Cebu can apply as an auto- 
nomous region. 

MR. NOLLEDO. The Gentleman will notice that the 
provisions state: “The legislature shall create auto- 
nomous regions consisting of provinces and cities with 
common historical . . .” It will be noticed also that in 


the statutory construction, the plural includes the 
singular and/or vice-versa. So I would consider that 
there is a possibility. 

MR. DAVIDE. That is the possibility. There is also a 
rule in statutory construction that the plural can include 
the singular. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, I agree. 

MR. DAVIDE. So, under this proposal, Negros can 
also apply as a distinct autonomous region. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President. 

MR. DAVIDE. Any province can apply, as a matter 
of fact. 

MR. NOLLEDO. In fact, I heard from many eco- 
nomists that they would like each province to be 
considered an autonomous region. In our Committee, 
we received several letters to that effect. 

MR. DAVIDE. As a matter of fact, any of the islands 
belonging to a subprovince in Leyte, like the island of 
Maripeti, which is a part of the subprovince of Biliran, 
can also apply as an autonomous region? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Before I answer that, it will be 
noticed that in ' Switzerland we also have the cantons 
which are very small, and within the canton there is eco- 
nomic progress. We also have the so-called semi-canton 
in answer to the question of Commissioner Rodrigo. So, 
there are so many ramifications involved in an auto- 
nomous government. 

MR. DAVIDE. In other words, under the proposal 
semiautonomous regions may be created. 

MR. NOLLEDO. That seems to be discretionary with 
Congress. 

MR. DAVIDE. But Congress is not prohibited. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I do not think so. 

MR. DAVIDE. It is not. In other words, Congress can 
expand the territorial and political subdivisions as pro- 
vided for in the Constitution. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Subject to the plebiscite as required 
by the provisions of Section 3 of Committee Report 
No. 21. 

MR. DAVIDE. So, is it the position of the Gentleman 
that an ordinary law can be enacted by Congress, esta- 
blishing other forms of political and territorial subdi- 
visions like a semiautonomous region? 

MR. NOLLEDO. That is a possibility. 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


189 


MR. DAVIDE. By ordinary legislations? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, by ordinary legislation and in 
answer to the question of Commissioner Bemas, a 
charter is an ordinary legislation by Congress. 

MR. DAVIDE. Correct. Is it the position of the Com- 
mittee that an ordinary legislation can estabhsh a new 
political unit not included in the definition of political 
and territorial subdivisions in a Constitution? 

MR. NOLLEDO. When we enumerated the provinces, 
cities, municipalities, barrios and autonomous regions 
as the territorial and political subdivisions of the Repub- 
lic of the Philippines, we took into account the present 
existing local government units and the formation of 
future autonomous regions. The provisions do not 
prevent Congress in creating other political units. 

MR. DAVIDE. What is added are only the words 
“autonomous region.” But I doubt very much if this 
possibility can be carried out by ordinary legislation 
without amending the Constitution. 

Anyway, I will go to another point. Under the 
proposal, there are many organic acts as there are 
regions aspiring for autonomy. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, that is the clear implication 
of Section 9. 

MR. DAVIDE. In other words, the concept of the 
Committee by an organic act is not a general organic 
act applicable to all who might apply to become an 
autonomous region? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, because of the possibility of 
nonuniformity as already explained in answer to the 
questions of Commissioner Rodrigo. Otherwise, we 
would have adopted the draft of the University of the 
Philippines recommending a general enabling act. 

MR. DAVIDE. In other words, because of possible 
nonuniformity, it is also possible that each of these 
organic acts may differ from the other? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, but not substantially because, 
as I said, there are provisions that must necessarily be 
uniform. 

MR. DAVIDE. Since each of these organic acts may 
differ from the other, each may also not comply strictly 
with the requirements provided for in the proposed 
section on autonomous regions. 

MR. NOLLEDO. What requirements is the Gentleman 
referring to? 

MR. DAVIDE. We have certain rights, prerogatives 
and restrictions. These are the standards for the esta- 
blishment of an autonomous region. 


MR. NOLLEDO. The Gentleman must be referring to 
Section 1 2 which provides: “Within its territorial juris- 
diction, the autonomous region shall have authority 
over the following.” In that case, generally, the charter 
or the organic act to be granted should substantially 
set forth provisions covering these instances set forth in 
Section 12. 

MR. DAVIDE. Is it not just possible that the Consti- 
tution mandates Congress to enact a general regional 
autonomy code under which regions wanting to become 
autonomous would merely apply? Like in the Local 
Government Code now, if a municipality wants to 
become a highly urbanized city, it can apply after 
meeting the requirements? 

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes, I think in the realm of 
possibility, that can be done in terms of the general 
principles subject, of course, to some kind of provi- 
sion that there would be variations to respond to the 
particularities of the ecology and culture of the area. 

MR. DAVIDE. Under this particular proposal, when 
will an autonomous region begin to have a distinct 
juridical personality? 

MR. NOLLEDO. To my mind, juridical personality 
will begin when all the conditions required by the 
Constitution are complied with; namely, when there is 
an organic act and when majority of the voters in the 
region have opted to operate under the autonomous 
government. 

MR. DAVIDE. Since this is an organic act, it may 
also be subject to the principles of initiative and refer- 
endum as provided for in the Article on the Legislative 
and, therefore, the law may be rejected or disapproved 
through a referendum all over the country. A refer- 
endum and initiative operate all over the country 
because we require a certain percentage of the total 
number of votets at any given time from all over the 
country. So, an organic act creating an autonomous 
region for a certain particular area may be rejected by 
the votes of all the people of the Philippines by way of a 
referendum. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I thank the Gentleman for asking 
that question because, as far as I am concerned, then 
should be an amendment, if necessary, to make th 
creation of an autonomous region an exception to tha 
rule. We did not foresee that situation. We are grateful 
to the Gentleman for calling our attention to it. 

MR. DAVIDE. And similarly it can be amended also 
through initiative by a vote of a certain percentage of 
the qualified electors all over the Philippines. 

MR. NOLLEDO. That would be the inevitable con- 
clusion, if we consider the charter or the organic act 
as mere legislation. 


190 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11,1 986 


MR. DAVIDE. But is it really an ordinary legislation? 
MR. NOLLEDO. Yes. 


MR. DAVIDE. It is not really a part or a supplement 
of the Constitution which can be repealed or superseded 
by an amendment. But even granting that it is a part of 
the Constitution, rather it is supplementary and could 
only be repealed or modified by an amendment, the 
initiative under the Article on Amendments can also 
repeal the same. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes. 


MR. DAVIDE. May a portion or a component unit 
of an autonomous region secede from the mother unit? 
For instance, we have an autonomous region in Central 
Visayas, can Cebu secede from the autonomous region? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Section 3 can apply to it. Section 3 
of Committee Report No. 21 provides: 

No autonomous region, province, city, municipality, or 
banio may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its 
boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with 
criteria established by law. 

It seems to me it is subject to the plebiscite as I 
already mentioned and that the questions should fall 
under this section. 


MR. DAVIDE. Under that particular section? 

a ^ complying with the criteria 

s a ished by law, now the Lx)cal Government Code, 
and subject to the holding of the plebiscite. 


MR. DAVIDE. So, that particular rule will be made 
apphcable to the autonomous regions. 


plebiscite that establishes the commencement of the 
juridical personality of an autonomous region — suppose 
in a particular area, which is supposed to be included 
in the autonomous region, the people rejected the 
proposal of the autonomy, can that particular area now 
be compelled to join the autonomous region? A specific 
example is Central Visayas. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I know that because we considered 
that possibility. It seems to me that presents a complica- 
tion, but as far as we are concerned, we believe that we 
decide on whether or not the plebiscite is in favor of the 
creation of an autonomous region by taking into 
account the entire voting within the region. 

MR. DAVIDE. Yes, but that would be imposing the 
will of others on the will of the people in a particular 
component unit. In this specific example, there is a 
move to establish an autonomous region in Central 
Visayas, composed merely of four provinces — Siquijor, 
Negros Oriental, Bohol and Cebu. But almost one-half 
of the total voting population of the entire regiori 
comes from Cebu and Cebu rejects the proposal or it 
does not want to join. Would the Gentleman now con- 
sider Cebu, bound by the entire votes of the other 
provinces, and compel Cebu to become a member of 
that autonomous region? 

MR. NOLLEDO. That is a very good question. 
Madam President, but I will tell the Gentleman my own 
opinion without binding the Committee. Because of the 
democratic process of being bound by the majority, 
then Cebu must comply. However, Congress itself may 
lay down certain conditions that if any province or any 
unit so decides not to join the autonomous region, that 
decision should be respected. It is possible that Congress 
may lay down the condition in the organic act. 


MR. NOLLEDO. Yes. 

So, secession by a component unit is 

still possible. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Of the autonomous regions? 

MR. DAVIDE. Yes. 


MR. NOLLEDO. Subject to the 
stated therein. 


conditions already 


MR. DAVIDE. But there 


is no specific proposal now 


» — oir 

to autonomous regions? 


MR. DAVIDE. Thank you for that information 
because at the appropriate time, there is a need for an 
amendment in that respect. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you. 

MR. DAVIDE. We will go to the regular local govern- 
mental units. Upon the effectivity of this Constitution, 
the existing Local Government Code shall govern the 
local government units because, under the proposal, 
there is no mandate to Congress to enact a local 
government code. So, necessarily, the existing Local 
Government Code shall continue to govern all these 
local government units, except the autonomous 
region. 


MR. NOLLEDO. There is none. 

MR. DAVIDE Anyway, since there is a piebiscite to 
be conducted before an autonomous region can come 
into being - meanmg to say, it is the approval in the 


MR. NOLLEDO. Except if inconsistent with the 
provisions of the Constitution that we may approve. 

MR. DAVIDE. When the Gentleman says “except 
when inconsistent,” would it mean, therefore, that there 


MONDAY, AUGUST 1 1 , 1 986 


191 


is a need to amend the Local Government Code to a 
certain extent? 

MR. NOLLEDO. I think it is not necessary. Any 
provision of the Local Government Code that is in- 
consistent with the newly approved or ratified Consti- 
tution should necessarily be revoked. 

MR. DAVIDE. What about the initiative as presently 
provided for in the Local Government Code? 

MR. NOLLEDO. I ask the Gentleman in return, is 
that inconsistent with the provisions on initiative of the 
legislative department? 

MR. DAVIDE. I am asking the Committee about this. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Because if there is no inconsistency, 
then the initiative may continue. 

MR. DAVIDE. So, we will leave it to the Supreme 
Court to determine? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Should there be a controversy. 

MR. DAVIDE. What about on referendum? 

MR. NOLLEDO. The same answer holds true. Madam 
President. 

MR. DAVIDE. Recall? 

MR. NOLLEDO. We did not have any provision on 
recall because in the 1973 Constitution that provision 
was authorized to be included in the Local Government 
Code. But I understand that there are some Com- 
missioners who would like to present amendments 
substantially the same as the provision of the 1973 
Constitution, mandating Congress to enact a new local 
government code. 

MR. DAVIDE. Yes. Otherwise, the provision on recall 
may no longer be available even if it is already provided 
for in the Local Government Code. 

MR- NOLLEDO. Yes, based on our report but we are 
expecting an amendment to reinstate the principle of 
recall. 

MR. DAVIDE. Another point is this Metropolitan 
Manila Commission of the metropolitan government. I 
understand that the position of the Committee is that 
the creation ot this government is unconslitutional. 

MR. NOLLEDO. That is my personal opinion. I 
cannot bind the Committee. 

MR. DAVIDE. What is the stand of the Committee so 
we could be guided accordmgly in the presentation of 
amendments or in voting on this particular proposal? 


MR. NOLLEDO. As far as the members of the Com- 
mittee are concerned, it is not necessary to make a stand 
because we did not adopt the provisions on metropo- 
litan government anyway. 

MR. DAVIDE. By not adopting a provision on 
metropolitan government, it would necessarily follow 
that once approved, this proposal would, in effect, put 
an end or abolish the existing metropohtan government? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, that would be the necessary 
effect. 

MR. DAVIDE. The necessary further effect would be 
that municipalities which were included under the 
Metropolitan Manila Commission would then be con- 
sidered returned to their mother units? 

MR. NOLLEDO. That is also my personal opinion. 
But the Commissioner knows that the mayors of Metro 
Manila came to see both of us and they are in favor of 
maintaining the geopolitical unit, which opinion I share 
with. Their existence can still be justified by Section 5 
of our committee report which provides that local 
government units may group themselves, consolidate or 
coordinate their efforts, services and resources for pur- 
poses commonly beneficial to them. And I would like 
the Constitutional Commission to know that the mayors 
of Metropolitan Manila are in favor of dismantling the 
Metro Manila Commission but that they would like to 
set up a coordinating agency in lieu of the Metro Manila 
Commission under this Section 5 of Committee Report 
No. 21. 

MR. DAVIDE. Under that particular section that the 
Commissioner has cited, allowing local governmental 
units to group together in pursuit of common objectives 
for their mutual benefit, would it require a plebiscite? 
Or is it only the act of the executives of these local 
government units? 

MR. NOLLEDO. That is a very good question. I do 
not think it requires a plebiscite. 

MR. DAVIDE. In effect there is a confederacy but a 
ygj-y loose confederacy? 

MR. NOLLEDO. I agree with the Commissioner. 

MR. DAVIDE. But in such a particular case the lives 
or the future of the people will be affected. Why do we 
not require a plebiscite? 

MR. NOLLEDO. We could not require a plebiscite 
because the powers of the coordinating agency involved 
here are very limited. They refer only to essential 
services like garbage, cleaning of streets, et cetera. 

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you, Madam President, and I 
also thank the sponsor. 


192 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11,1 986 


MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I ask that Com- 
missioner Villacorta be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villacorta is recog- 
nized. 


MR. VILLACORTA. Madam President, I just would 
ike to direct some questions to the Committee. First of 
ill, I would like to say that I am sympathetic to the idea 
of regional autonomy particularly for the Muslims and 
he Cordillera regions. I would like to raise the questions 
isked by the UP Local Government Center in relation to 
local autonomy in general. For the information of the 
body, the Local Government Center of the UP has con- 
ducted research and training courses for local govern- 
ment officials for several decades throughout the 
country and has been in close touch with the local 
governments at all levels. The staff of this Center 
studied very carefully the committee report on local 
governments and the first question that they asked had 
to do with local autonomy in general, and I quote: 

To ensure that local autonomy would help rather than 
hinder the promotion of democracy and efficiency at the 
local, as well as national levels, the State should undertake 
political and administrative reforms in local governments 
to accompany the promotion of autonomy; otherwise, 
t e grant of substantial local autonomy would be a disaster 
at both levels since it would exacerbate the problems of 
oc oligarchy, corruption and incompetence while making 
e national policy more vulnerable to centrifugal forces. 

There should be separate constitutional provisions 
against t e maintenance and operation of local political 
ynasties. For example, an absolute ceiling on reelection 
0 e same individuals and rules against close relatives 
teaming up or alternating in political positions at different 
eve s o government. There should also be constitutional 
an statutory provisions for more effective community con- 
0 to insure that their local governments are both re- 
sponsive and responsible in the broader segments of the 
community, for example, popular initiatives in local 
legislation and recall of errant officials. 

The national government should complement these 
measures by establishing clear and coordinated policies 
an standards by guiding and gauging local government 


would like to know is whether 
nthTr P^o^^ding for these areas of concern in 

Elections that^ Would contemplate on adding i 
^ of these areas of appreli 


MR. NOLLEDO. We aeree u/uu + 1 , u ..u 

Commissioner has just ^^^/^servations the 

there are two safeguardTrSom le 7 "h k 

the Constitutiona, t/ec^ f th"e 

policy on recall, we wUl welcome any proposal to 
amend our committee report. I think the observations 
are well-taken. 


MR. VILLACORTA. Thank you. 

MR. NOLLEDO. This is just an example. There are 
many provisions now embodied in the report of the 
Committee on Accountability of Public Officers de- 
signed to eradicate or eliminate graft and corruption in 
all levels of government. 

MR. VILLACORTA. Thank you. 

I have just one more question. Section 9 starts with 
the sentence “The legislature shall create autonomous 
regions . . . et cetera.” Commissioner Nolledo always 
mentions the Constitution of Spain. If we will notice in 
Chapter 3, Article 143 entitled: “Concerning the Auto- 
nomous Communities,” the auxiliary verb used is 
“may.” 

MR. NOLLEDO. In what section is that? 

MR. VILLACORTA. I am talking about Section 9. 
Does the Commissioner mean the Spanish Constitution 
or his own provision? 

MR. NOLLEDO. I have here Sections 135 upwards of 
the Spanish Constitution on autonomous communities. 
What article is the Commissioner referring to? 

MR. VILLACORTA. I am referring to Article 143. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Article 143 in Chapter 3, and it 
entitled: “Concerning the Autonomous Communities. 

MR. VILLACORTA. That is right. 

The Committee is giving the initiative to the legisla- 
ture, but I notice that in the Spanish Constitution, the 
initiative is given to the communities themselves thereby 
preventing a situation where to suit the politica 
interests of legislators, artificial autonomous regions 
may be set up. 

Paragraph 1 of Article 143 states: 

In the exercise of the right of autonomy recognized in 
Article II of the Constitution, bordering provinces with 
common historical, cultural and economic characteristics, 
the island territories and the provinces with a historical, 
regional entity may accede to self-government and consti- 
tute themselves into autonomous communities in ac- 
cordance with the provisions of that title and the respective 
statutes. 

Paragraph 2 states: 

The initiatj^ for the autonomous process belongs to all 
the interested deputations or to the pertinent inter-island 
body, et cetera. 

Moreover, I would like to emphasize that the Spanish 
Constitution does not use “shall” but “may.” There is 
merit in the usage of “may” over “shall,” I think it says 
“The legislature may create” rather than “shall create.” 
This does not make the creation of autonomous regions 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


193 


mandatory inasmuch as there were reservations raised 
by Commissioners Ople, Rodrigo and others about 
regions other than the Cordillera and the MusUm regions 
wanting to be autonomous. The use of this auxiliary 
verb would probably make the intention of the Com- 
mittee more flexibly implemented. It may not be wise 
to mandate the creation of autonomous regions for we 
are either not ready for it or it is simply not suited for 
some regions. Autonomy may be suited to those regions 
wherein the provinces or cities have sufficient local 
government levels. To mandate the creation of another 
intervening layer of local government between the 
province and the national government without necessa- 
rily taking into account the specific or special needs of 
the area may just result in more bureaucracy not to 
mention the waste of resources since the autonomous 
regions will necessarily mean tlie creation of more 
administrative structures. Lastly, the second hne of 
Section 9. . . 

MR. NOLLEDO. Will the Commissioner please permit 
me to give my answer to his first question because he is 
already proceeding to another question? 

I suggest that the Commissioner analyze Article 143, 
Chapter 3 of the Constitution of Spain concernmg the 
autonomous communities. The word “may” refers to 
the provinces, bordering provinces, to the island terri- 
tories and to the people applying for autonomy. So the 
word “may” is on the part of the provinces and the 
people. Here in our provision, it is on the part of 
Congress, assuming that there is a corresponding apphca- 
tion to create autonomous regions. The moment there is 
an application to the Congress of the Philippines to 
create autonomous regions, we are mandating the legis- 
lature to so create as long as the conditions required by 
the Constitution are complied with. So, the word 
“may” refers to the people themselves. They may or 
they may not create autonomous communities. So there 
is a great world of difference between Section 9 of our 
Committee Report No. 21 and Article 143 of the 
Spanish Constitution adverted to by the Gentleman. 

MR. VILLACORTA. On the contrary. Article 144, if 
I may proceed, says: 

. The Cortes Generales, by means of an organic law, may 

for reasons of national interest: a) Authorize the establish- 
ment of an autonomous community, et cetera 

Again, the word “may” is used here, not “shall.” Hence, 
there is always the use of the word “may” in order to 
counter any possible danger of all communities at all 
levels demanding that they be considered autonomous. 

MR. NOLLEDO. In relation to that, pardon me if I 
am defending Section 9, while we use the word “shall,” 
in effect, if the autonomous region is not viable as 
stated in answer to the question of Commissioner 
Romulo, Congress may deny the grant of an organic 
act. So there is some discretion left to Congress. 


MR. VILLACORTA. Lastly, line 8 of Section 9 of 
Resolution No. 5 1 1 says: “consisting of provinces and 
cities with common historical, geographic, et cetera.” 
Did the Committee really want to use the word “com- 
mon” or would it had been clearer if the term “dis- 
tinctive” was used? I think any group in the Philip- 
pines can invoke this because we do have so much 
commonality as far as historical, geographic, cultural, 
linguistic, ethnic, communal, economic and other 
characteristics are concerned. What the Commissioner 
is referring to are actually those communal groups or 
communities that have distinctive historical, geographic, 
and other characteristics. 

1 

MR. NOLLEDO. We will consider any amendment to 
that effect. 

MR. VILLACORTA. Thank you very much. 

MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I ask that Com- 
missioner Quesada be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Quesada is recog- 
nized. 

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, first of all, I 
would hke to express my support to the proposed 
amendment. I feel very strongly that we must respond 
to the people who have expressed such aspiration like 
the Bangsa Moro people and the people of the Cor- 
dilleras. While it is true that the details on how this will 
be operational would still be worked out, I suppose that 
the brilliant minds of this Commission would be a great 
help as the Committee crystallizes some of those areas 
which are not anticipated. Such areas may cause 
possible confusion, but basically these are the concerns 
that we hope we should be able to respond to. 

There are some questions I would like to raise and 
one would be on Section 2 in relation to the sectoral 
representation which would be prescribed by law. At 
this point, does not the Commission think that there 
should already be some kind of a guideline by the Com- 
mission on the definition of these broad categories of 
sectors to be represented in legislative bodies of local 
governments? Just for the record, has the Commissioner 
expressed the intendment of the Commission on such 
sectoral representation? 

MR. NOLLEDO. At the time this was formulated, 
the Constitutional Commission has not yet passed even 
on First Reading the provisions on sectoral representa- 
tion, but we will be guided accordingly in the 
determination of what sectoral representation should 
mean. 

We will notice that in the Local Government Code, 
sectoral representation is also provided for, but it seems 
to me that the members representing the sectors are 
appointed by the President. 


194 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


MS. QUESADA. Would the Commissioner consider 
the classification that we had in the Legislative which 
consisted of the peasants, farmers, youth, urban poor, 
women and indigenous communities? 

MR. BENNAGEN. That can serve as a broad guide- 
line, but it may not be valid in certain cases because 
some regions may not be sufficiently differentiated as 
to allow this kind of representation. I think we will be 
guided by the comprehensive investigation of the area 
with respect to existing sectors. 


ing. So the provisions on health as we have already 
approved should bind the regional and other loc^ 
governments. 

MS. QUESADA. So, the Commissioner would be 
amenable to qualifying this paragraph 7 of Section 12 
to correspond to what he has placed here which says: 
“Protection of the environment in accordance with 
standards and regulations of the national government”? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes. 


MS. QUESADA. So, the Commissioner will leave this 
to Congress to prescribe what sectors to be included and 
excluded? 


MR. BENNAGEN. Again, in consideration of the 
existing realities in the regions, there should be some 
systematic consultation with the regions. 

At this juncture, the President relinquished the Chair 
to the Honorable Renato V. Sarmiento. 

MS. QUESADA. The second point I want to ask 
concerns the broad exercise of general supervision over 
local governments by the President of the Philippines. 

The Committee mentioned here in Section 12 - and 
is w^ clearly defined for the autonomous region but 
won er if this would also hold true for local govern- 
men s ~ on line 19, paragraph 7 : “Establishment, opera- 
ion and maintenance of regional health, welfare and 
other social services.” Is the intendment of the Commit- 
autonomous region formulate its own 
standards and regulations insofar as health, welfare and 
o er social services are concerned, or would they be 

covered by the general standards of health at the 
national level? 


• NNAGEN. In general, we can say that there 
mus e some general principles which should guide the 
implementation of social services at the various levels. 
At the same time, we are saying that the program should 
SO respond to the characteristics at the local level; for 
instance, the use of traditional medicine or, I think 
more importantly with respect to the capability of the 
oca regions, there must be some form of sharing with 
respect to taxes to enable the local governments or the 
regions to maintain a self-reliant social service program. 


Hptprminin would be in the area c 

aiitrmnmni^ ® Pnoilty or the program thrust in th 

Hnwpvpr / ^ govemmeni 

Howe er, I ani thmkmg of certain standards of tha 

reduce the level of communicable diseases, would th 
local governments be able to respond to tkat nation, 
mandate for improving the level of health? 


MS. QUESADA. Then the third point I would like to 
reinforce is the item expressed by the Committee on 
Section 8 which deals with local taxes and the sharing of 
the proceeds of the exploitation and development of the 
national wealth. I would just like to put on record that 
there was a resolution also submitted to this Member by 
the Province of Negros Oriental in relation to their geo- 
thermal resources in the area of Palimpinon, Municipal- 
ity of Valencia, which they felt did not really improve 
the development of the province, although they were 
hosting such resources. So, this is really to add on to 
what Commissioner Ople already mentioned that a host 
community does not really profit from such wealth 
because it becomes part of the national wealth. I think 
the people of Negros have already expressed this con- 
cern — that local government should really partake of 
the wealth and natural resource that they have in their 
place. 

These are all the questions I want to raise and I hope 
that this body will be able to really iron out these 
matters and to consider not to eliminate the concept of 
autonomy for the people who have so loudly and clearly 
expressed this desire to us. 

Basically, this is the people’s cry for self-determina- 
tion that we must respect, not for those who have not 
yet expressed such will or aspiration but for those who 
have already done so like the people of the Cordilleras 
and the Bangsa Moro people. 

Thank you. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like 
to express my thanks to Commissioner. Quesada for her 
sympathetic understanding. Instead of showing indif- 
ference, she set forth a wonderful rule, that we should 
find ways and means by which we can serve our people 
well because we, the members of the Committee, tried 
our very best and il any of the Commissioners disagrees 
with us, then he can suggest to us amendments and we 
will subject ourselves to the will of the majority in this 
Commission. The attitude of Commissioner Quesada is 
overwhelming and I feel grateful to her. I think that that 
should be the attitude of every Commissioner. Com- 
missioner Quesada has manifested broad-mindedness 
and generosity, as well as magnanimity. 


the national mandate MR. ROMULO. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask that 
set lorth m the Constitution should be considered bind- Commissioner Suarez be recognized. 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986 


195 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). Before 
Commissioner Suarez interpellates the members of the 
Committee, I think Commissioner Bennagen would like 
to say something. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes. I think we have moved away 
a great deal from the rather innocuous provision on 
regional autonomy to the rather threatening concept of 
federalism. I think when we were discussing this in the 
Committee, we had in mind nothing more than the 
concrete elaboration of the 1973 Constitution, Section 
1 1 of the General Provisions thereof, which says: 

The State shall consider the customs, traditions, beliefs, 

and interests of national cultural communities in the for- 
mulation and implementation of State policies. 

While sympathetic in its intent to the very concrete 
concerns of cultural minorities, this provision was 
honored more in the breach. As a matter of fact, 
the commentary on this was put in a bronze plate along 
the Chico River. What we are saying now is that we 
trace historically the evolution of these various in- 
digenous cultural communities. We begin to find out 
that since the Spanish period, these cultural communi- 
ties have been integrated into the national mainstream 
as collectivities in contrast to the effort of the national 
government to integrate Filipinos as individuals. Note 
that since the Americans got in, they carried over the 
distinctions already made by the Spanish government in 
terms of Muslims, non-Christians, Christians, Indios, 
and Fieles. 

This was further elaborated on by the American 
government and expressed administratively in the 
creation of a number of organizations that deal speci- 
fically with these cultural communities as collectivities, 
not as individuals so much so that we have had even 
after political independence organizations such as the 
Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes and others which again 
separated these groups from the larger Christian lowland 
population. In other words, this has been long in 
coming. These groups have retained distinctive charac- 
teristics to warrant the proposed amendment expressed 
earlier by Commissioner Villacorta. 

The popular definitions of cultural minorities all 
encompass the fact that they have been the least 
westernized. This is a commentary on the degree of 
westernization that has taken place amongst the low- 
land Filipino Christians. 

We are saying, therefore, that these groups - the 
people of the Cordillera; the Bangsa Moro; the Lumad 
(which is a generic term for the various cultural com- 
munities in Mindanao, as well as the scattered tribes in 
Mindoro and Sierra Madre); and the Ati or Negritoes of 
the Visayas — have arrived at a self-definition which 
separates them from the overwhelming majority of 
lowland Filipino Christians. It is in recognition of this 
self-assertion of their peoplehood that we have this 
regional autonomy provision apart from those other 
considerations that have already been discussed such as 


efficiency, manageability and all others that could very 
well apply to local government. However, regional 
autonomy specifically responds to these distinctive 
features that have separated them from lowland 
majorities for so long. 

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). The 
lionorable Commissioner from Pampanga is recognized. 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

I would like to follow the thrust that was presented 
by Commissioner Quesada and confirmed by Com- 
missioner Nolledo that we should be contributive to 
this particular Article. Indeed, it is susceptible to many 
interpretations. I take it that the main thrust of this 
Article is to decentralize the government. 

Is my understanding correct? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Is the Commissioner referring to 
Section 9? 

MR. SUAREZ. Yes, practically to Section 9. And the 
Commissioner would like to get away from the central- 
ized government initiated by Spain and the United 
States even under the 1935 Constitution? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes; I made the statement here and 
I know many may disagree that the unitary system is 
the cause of all the ills in the country. We will never go 
far if we stick to the unitary system, if we do not keep 
out of the maverick shell of conservatism and obso- 
lescence. 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. 

Your Committee has been bombarded with questions 
regarding the possible proliferation of autonomous 
regions in our country. But I notice that under Section 
9, the Committee provided for the common character- 
istics which would serve as basis for our legislature to 
create autonomous regions. Is that not correct? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, but we added the words “eco- 
nomic characteristics.” We did not concentrate on the 
historical, linguistic or ethnic idiosyncracies. 

MR. SUAREZ. So, can we clarify this point? When 
we speak of common historical, geographic, cultural, 
linguistic, ethnic, communal and economic character- 
istics within a proposed autonomous region, do we 
intend all of these characteristics to coexist, to concur 
and to coincide together in a substantial degree? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Not necessarily, because some of 
them may not concur. 

MR. SUAREZ. I see. So it is possible that an auto- 
nomous region could be created and established even if 
it has only geographic characteristics? 


196 


MONDAY, AUGUST 1 1 , 1 986 


MR. NOLLEDO. That is possible but if I were the 
Congress I woiild go far when I grant the organic act. 

MR. SUAREZ. The same is true with respect to the 
other characteristics, like historical, cultural, linguistic, 
ethnic, communal and economic. They could exist 
independently of each other; nonetheless, they could 
serve as the bases for the creation of an autonomous 
region. Is that understanding correct? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Commissioner Bennagen would like 
to answer. 

• 

MR. BENNAGEN. In the history of autonomous 
regions, there are these substantial characteristics so 
enumerated, and to distinguish autonomy from the 
concept of a federal state, we in the Committee say that 
autonomy refers to regions that really show distinctive- 
ness with respect to culture and ecology. 

MR. SUAI^Z. So, the Commissioner would say that 
in a substantial degree, all of these characteristics must 
be common in that autonomous region? 

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes. 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. 

Under Section 1 5, the Committee is referring to two 
proposed autonomous regions - Mindanao and the 
LordiUera. I heard Commissioner Ople mention the fact 

a e Provinces of Davao, Cotabato and Palawan are 
not mcluded or may not be included within the auto- 
nomous regions of Mindanao. Is my understanding in 
this regard correct? 


. ALONTO. Under the Tripoli Agreement those 
proi^cw that the Commissioner mentioned which were 
onginaUy part of the supposed autonomous regions to 
be established were eliminated by the last regime when 
it st^ed to put up these two autonomous regions in 
Mmdanao; namely. Regions IX and XII. But as far as 
this committee report is concerned, these autonomous 
r^ons existing now in Mindanao are considered points 
o reference only because as we notice. Section 1 6 
states th^ the first legislature under this Constitution 
shall, witlM one year from election of its Merifbers, pass 
nan autonomous regions of Minda- 

Kv fhf. r ^ And in passing the organic acts 

Slirds refers back to Section 9. In other 

^tSiom^s specifically refer to the 

cinwL wm ^ existence. Under Section 9, 

wouU justify tSe " V ” 

ha»ineconunonhistoncal.geog4hL;cuSta^^^^^ 

other cSSS 

to foim one autonomous region. In other words, 
Congress is not reaUy bound by the existing auto^ 
.nomous regions m Mmdanao when the organic acts will 
be enacted in the future. 


MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. 

I just want to clear up this point because geograph- 
ically speaking, Mindanao is composed of many 
provinces. However, for purposes of this committee 
report, is the Committee envisioning the inclusion or the 
exclusion of Davao, Cotabato and Palawan so that this 
would be on record for future legislation? 

MR. BENNAGEN. May I answer that, Mr. Presiding 
Officer. 

The issue here is not the existing political boundaries 
but the claim to ancestral land. At the bottom of the 
struggles of the people of the Cordillera, the Mangyans 
of Mindanao, the Dumagats of Tanay, and much more 
so in the case of the Bangsa Moro people is the claim to 
their ancestral land. Having said that, we wish to 
emphasize that the claim to ancestral land is the claim 
to their peoplehood because their peoplehood is based 
on the land, in contrast to the western claim to the land 
by means of a piece of paper. That has to be recon- 
sidered apart from existing political boundaries. 

MR. SUAREZ. So what is the final answer? Are these 
three provinces going to be excluded for purposes of 
creating regional autonomous regions in Mindanao? 

MR. ALONTO. Mr. Presiding Officer, if we read very 
well these different sections, we could immediately 
imagine and conceive that it is Congress that is actually 
going to choose the cities and provinces that will corn- 
pose the autonomous regions. Likewise, Congress is 
bound to enact the organic acts after the majority 
of the people would have been brought together in a 
referendum. 

* 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. 

MR. NOLLEDO. In other words, we do not like to 
mention any statement that certain provinces are not 
included or should be excluded because we would like 
to give Congress a leeway to determine what shall 
compose a particular autonomous region. 

MR. SUAREZ. So, probably, the correct interpreta- 
tion is “regions in Mindanao” instead of “regions of 
Mindanao.” 

Is that the meaning sought to be conveyed? I ask 
so because when we speak of regions of Mindanao and 
the Cordillera, we are referring only to two regions. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes, that is correct. Incidentally, 
we wish to declare that when the period of amendments 
comes, we would like to amend Section 9 to change 
“provinces and cities,” which are existing political cate- 
gories, into AREAS AND POPULATIONS so that we 
will not be delimited by existing concepts of provinces. 
We feel that the existing boundaries do not represent 
cultural and ecological realities, rather they were re- 


MONDAY, AUGUST 1 1 , 1 986 


197 


sponses to some political needs and administrative 
requirements. We wish to correct that. 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you; and I suppose the rule in 
the case of Mindanao would apply also to the case of 
the Cordillera. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes. 

MR. SUAREZ. We will not have to mention the 
provinces composing the probable autonomous region 
of the Cordillera . . . 

MR. BENNAGEN. . . . where it does not reflect the 
ecological and cultural realities. 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. 

May we now go to Section 8 referring to “proceeds of 
the exploitation and development of the national wealth 
within their respective areas.” I take it that the word 
“proceeds” refers to royalties from the exploitation of 
the natural resources in that area. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes, that would include also 
special charges and schedule of fees. 

MR. SUAREZ. When we speak of the creation of an 
autonomous region by virtue of an organic act that is 
going to be passed by the legislature , are we thinking in 
terms of holding a plebiscite before or after the passage 
of the organic act? In other words, in addition to the 
prior consultations with the local elective officials, I 
take it that the people have to be consulted about the 
possible establishment of an autonomous region. Will 
that consultation be made before or after? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Obviously, the consultation should 
be made before. 

MR. SUAREZ. Is it going to take the form of a plebi- 
scite called for the purpose? 

MR. NOLLEDO. That is possible, should Congress 
so decide. I have answered a similar question like this 
before. 

MR. SUAREZ. So, before Congress would initiate the 
legislation which would amount to the passage of an 
organic act , there must first be a plebiscite called for 
the purpose and that plebiscite would have to be con- 
ducted in that particular autonomous region. Is that 
correct? 

MR. NOLLEDO. I would recommend that it be so. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes. I think some exceptions have 
to be made particularly in the case of the Cordilleras 
and the Bangsa Moro because of their historical parti- 
cularities. In other words, in practice, they have been 


having some kind of self-determination, whatever their 
government’s name is, except that we now call it region- 
al autonomy, and that they have so expressed this desire 
in so many ways. I feel that this proposal is even going 
beyond the spirit of consultation and initiative. Over the 
centuries, they have expressed this initiative or this 
assertion of right to self-determination to choose their 
path of economic, political and cultural development. 
They have to be considered as exemptions; but in the 
future, I would imagine there will be cases of applica- 
tion for regional autonomy. 

MR. SUAREZ. So, in that particular case of the 
Cordillera and the Bangsa Moro, the Commissioner will 
advance the proposition that there is no need anymore 
to call a plebiscite. 

MR. BENNAGEN. That is my view. 

MR. SUAREZ. So, Congress can immediately enact 
those contemplated organic acts. 

MR. BENNAGEN. I would even plead that this Com- 
mission should declare both the Cordillera and Bangsa 
Moro as autonomous regions. 

MR. SUAREZ. Is the Commissioner including the 
Bangsa Moro in that proposition? 

MR. BENNAGEN. I intend to do that. 

MR. SUAREZ. And for all the other regions that may 
have to be established and declared as autonomous re- 
gions, the Commissioner will require, as a condition 
sine qua non, the holding of a plebiscite? 

MR. BENNAGEN. I think that is the intent of 
Section 9. 

MR. NOLLEDO. When the Commissioner said that 
the people of the Cordilleras have continuously ex- 
pressed their desire to set up an autonomous region, he 
only expressed his personal opinion? 

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I think a plebiscite would still be 
necessary. Congress may require such plebiscite to make 
the sentiments of the people of the Cordillera official. 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. 

My last question has something to do with Section 
14. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Section 14 is on page 3 of Commit- 
tee Report No. 25. 

MR. SUAREZ. That is right. The second sentence 
disturbs me a little. It states: 


198 


MONDAY, AUGUST 11 , 1 986 


When circumstances so warrant, the regional government 
may establish its own special forces subject to supervision 
by the national armed forces and under such provisions as 
the law may provide. 

Does not the Commissioner see any danger lying 
behind this provision? We might be setting up regional 
warlords. 


MR. NOLLEDO. The Commissioner will notice that 
this was taken from the Tripoli Agreement but with 
several conditions set forth therein. In the Tripoli 
Agreement there is no qualification whatsoever, but 
here we have the words “when circumstances so war- 
rant, . . . subject to supervision by the national armed 
forces and under such provisions as the law may 
provide.” 

In the Tripoli Agreement, there is a statement to the 
effect that the regional government shall be authorized 
to establish its own special forces. In order that we may 
temper the fear expressed from different quarters on the 
setting up of such special forces, we laid down the 
following conditions: (1) when circumstances so war- 
rant, (2) that they must be subject to supervision or 
even control by the national armed forces; (3) that 
they shall be subject to provisions of law that may be 
provided by Congress. 

And the Commissioner will notice that the last 
sentence also states: “Such special forces shall be under 
the command of the President of the Philippines.” 

I know that there are many who are objecting to this; 
so we will entertain amendments at the proper time. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). Com- 
missioner de Castro is recognized. 


MR. DE CASTRO. Thank you. 

th ^ respect to the chairman and members c 
e ommittee, I beg to disagree with the establishmei 
o specml forces knowing fully well that in the Commi 
Provisions of which I am a member, tl 
HDF, categorized as a paramilitary unit, has bee 
dismantled and the provision therefor has been tran 
erre to the Article on Transitory Provisions. Tl 
these special forces have led to many thinj 
w ^ ave been the subject of so many complaints i 

thl human rights people, resulting j 

ons 1 u lonalization of a human rights organizatio; 

haw^whnt^’ Article on General Provisions, w 

hp nraaniy'n^ Citizens’ armed force which ma 

be organized m accordance with law. These are tl 

trainees or the reserve offirerc • t v 

j <Jiucers m the region who may 1 

1 given certain allov 

ances, and the law wiU so provide for their use in tl 
campaign against insurgency. 

Also, when we talk of local poUce agencies here, tl 
provision in the Article on General Provisions - and th 


is sponsored by Commissioner Natividad — states that 
there shall be a national police force which should be 
supervised and controlled by the National Police Com- 
mission. However, Congress may provide for whatever 
control there may be for the local chief executive. 

The reason here is the professionalization of police 
agencies. We know that the police force has the main 
duty of maintaining peace and order and protecting life 
and property. When we talk of that duty, we are talking 
of the lives of the 54 million people and their property. 

And so. Commissioner Natividad and I felt that there 
is a need to professionalize our police forces if we want 
our lives and property to be protected by the police and 
if we want peace and order in our country. 

If the Committee will permit. Commissioner Nativi- 
dad and I will propose certain amendments on this 
provision at the proper time. 

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. 

MR. SUAREZ. Is the Commissioner saying that he is 
with us in expressing fear and apprehension about the 
establishment of special forces, the functions of which 
are not defined definitely? 

MR. DE CASTRO. Yes. I had had very bad ex- 
periences about these special forces from the time I was 
still a major up to the time I became a general. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). Com- 
missioner Bennagen is recognized. 

MR. BENNAGEN. In connection with the issue on 
special forces, mention was made of the possibility of 
resurgence or even the emergence of warlordism in 
certain areas. I think we should look at warlordism from 
a sociological and historical perspective. It is not some- 
thing that is easily given in any particular region, and 
apropos of this, I would like to read what Rene Santiago 
of the Philippine Institute of Environmental Planning 
manifested in our deliberations: 

Warlordism is really a creature of our patronage politics. 
Whether federalism will encourage it, more or less, can only 
be speculated upon. What is clear, however, is that a 
centralized form of government forces a President or any 
national leader, for that matter, to rely on ward leaders 
whose main strengths, in turn, lie in their access to the 
national levers of powers; that is, their ability to lobby for 
largesse from above. This unholy alliance perpetuates the 
underdevelopment of the countryside on two counts: 

(1) it destroys self-reliance as it fosters dependence on 
external funding to develop; and (2) it does not put a 
premium on performance and on viability. 

In addition, I would like to say that the emergence of 
people’s organizations, the increasing political awareness 
and maturity of the people would be a strong antidote 


MONDAY, AUGUST n, 1986 


199 


to the resurgence of warlordism where it originally 
existed, and its prevention in areas where no such 
phenomenon has still taken place. 

MR. SUAREZ. So the ultimate resolution of this 
problem will be whether it benefits the people or not. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes. 

MR. SUAREZ. 1 am referring to the possible creation 
of special forces. 

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes. I think we should have that 
foremost in our minds, that the provisions for auto- 
nomous regions should be directed towards the benefit 
of the people in the autonomous region and, of course, 
not to mention, maintaining always the complementa- 
rity of the autonomous region with the national society. 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. 

MR. PADILLA. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just 
make one short statement? 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). Com- 
missioner Padilla is recognized. 

MR. PADILLA. This is on special forces. I heard the 
distinguished chairman state that the Tripoli Agreement 
authorizes the creation or establishment of special 
forces. That is not exactly accurate. 

The Tripoli Agreement has several items. Among 
them is the special regional security forces subject to 
discussion later on. The Tripoli Agreement does not 
provide or stipulate . . . 

MR. NOLLEDO. I understand that the conditions 
under which special forces may be formed should be 
subject to discussion. That was made clear to our Com- 
mittee by some Muslims who appeared before us. 

MR. PADILLA. Yes, because when I wrote an article 
on the Tripoli Agreement of 1976 I had occasion to 
read and analyze it. -There are many provisions therein 
subject to discussion later on. Among them is the right 
to set up schools. Also, the Muslims shall have their 
own administrative system, financial and economic 
system, special regional security forces, and others 
under Section 14. But these are not so stipulated. They 
are only to be discussed or considered later. 

Thank you. 

MR. NOLLEDO. I thank Commissioner Padilla for 
the enlightenment, because we were made to under- 
stand that the principle was approved but the conditions 
were subject to discussion. 

MR. ABUBAKAR. Mr. Presiding Officer. 


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). Com- 
missioner Abubakar is recognized. 

MR. ABUBAKAR. There is an apprehension in 
connection with this organization of special local 
forces. The Committee, probably, saw the need as it 
applies to a particular situation. In many provinces, 
we have the Philippine Constabulary-INP, but its police 
force is drawn from outside the province. Therefore, 
while members are there to maintain peace and order, 
they are not able to appreciate the local reaction — the 
temperament or the attitudes of the people. This could 
only promote misunderstanding between those who 
are there to maintain peace and order and the citizens 
who are supposed to be protected by them. 

That is why in many places, in case this situation 
arises, many local or provincial officials would ask the 
national government if they can organize in their own 
particular province or municipality a force that would 
understand the situation there and the people who 
might be in opposition. This action will enable the 
people to reach an understanding with this special force 
so as not to create a situation of actual military clashes. 
This is in the interest of the people. We refer to a special 
force that is not to be used for a special purpose but one 
who understands the people because its members are 
from the same place and they know very well the 
situation. 

MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officer. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). Com- 
missioner de Castro is recognized. 

MR. DE CASTRO. To allay the fears of Com- 
missioner Abubakar, when the General Provisions will 
be discussed, particularly the provision on citizens’ 
armed force and local police, it will be well- explained 
that when we talk of such citizens’ armed force, we 
would refer to the reservists in the area. 

The reserve officers in the area will be called to active 
duty pursuant to law, be given training and will serve 
their respective areas against insurgency. Also, there will 
be a national police force which shall be under the 
National Police Commission. 

However, when we talk of the local police forces, the 
members would be people from the same region or from 
the same municipality because it is the intent that the 
police must be civilian in nature and in character. So, if 
Commissioner Abubakar has a son or a grandson who 
likes to be a member of the police force, he can be 
enlisted in the police force in the Commissioner’s 
region. It will not be possible under our proposal that a 
man from Ilocos will go to Sulu to be a policeman there. 

MR. ABUBAKAR. That is correct. 

MR. DE CASTRO. In this proposal, a man from Sulu, 
a reservist, will be recruited as a policeman or as a mem- 


200 


MONDAY, AUGUST 1 1 , 1 986 


her of the citizens’ armed force to be trained and used 
against insurgency in that area. It will be the officer 
from Sulu who will lead the citizens’ armed force. That 
is our concept when we talk of citizens’ armed forces 
and a national police force under the direction of the 
National Police Commission. Of course, when one is 
designated or appointed as a policeman in his own area, 
the first thing he will do is to first pass an examination, 
more particularly an aptitude test. Next he has to go to 
the National Police Academy to train since this is really 
a requirement for professionalization. Moreover, all 
officers from an area shall be graduates of the National 
Police Academy in Tagaytay. Hence when someone goes 
to his respective municipality to serve as a policeman, he 
is already trained and professionalized. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). May 
we ask Commissioner Suarez to ask his last question? 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer; I 
will yield to the others after this. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I have 
the floor because this is very material. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). Com- 
missioner Nolledo is recognized. 

MR. NOLLEDO. With the kind indulgence of Com- 
missioner Suarez, I have found the Tripoli Agreement 
provision which states: 

Special, regional security forces are to be set up in the 

area of the autonomy for the Muslims in the South of the 

Philippines. The relationship between these forces and the 

central security forces shall be fixed later. 

That is the provision of the Tripoli Agreement as 
presented to us by the Bangsa Moro for the Philippine 
Constitution of 1986. 

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you for the clarification. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. 


saying earlier is that we would like to state explicitly in 
the Constitution that the Cordillera region, minus the 
details of its definition and its charter, and the Bangsa 
Moro, minus its territorial boundaries and all that, 
should be considered autonomous regions, without 
saying that the charter of the organic acts will not be 
submitted to a plebiscite or a referendum. This will have 
to be approved by the people themselves. 

MR. SUAREZ. Will there be no need to call a plebi- 
scite for those regions or political units which may be 
affected by the establishment of these autonomous 
regions? 

MR. BENNAGEN. For the specification of the 
region? 

MR. SUAREZ. Yes. 

MR. BENNAGEN. There will be a need, but the con- 
cept should be there. That is why we are saying m 
Section 9: “all areas and populations that have dis- 
tinctive,” et cetera. 

MR. SUAREZ. In the case of Mindanao, if we are 
going to exclude the three provinces mentioned by 
Commissioner Ople, are we not going to consult the 
people therein by way of a plebiscite? 

MR. BENNAGEN. In the process of defining the 
boundaries? 

MR. SUAREZ. Yes. 

MR. BENNAGEN. There will be a consultation. 

MR. SUAREZ. And these consultations will take the 
form of a plebiscite? 

MR. BENNAGEN. Whatever is appropriate. 

MR. SUAREZ. Would this be before or after the 
promulgation of the organic act? 


MR. SUAREZ. May I now go to my last question 
Under Section 16, there are certain periods stipulatec 
within which the first legislature is under obligation t( 
p^s t e organic acts for the autonomous regions ii 
Mindanao and the Cordillera. Do I take it that per th( 
exp anation of Commissioner Bennagen there is n< 
need for a plebiscite before or after the promulgation o 

insofar as the autonomous regions o 
Mindanao and Cordillera are concerned? 


MR. BENNAGEN. In the process it should be before, 
and there is that terminal act, which would then make 
the region acquire its juridical personality. 

MR. SUAREZ. Suppose the three provinces would 
object, but the rest of the Mindanao areas would agree, 
what would be the result of the plebiscite? How would 
it affect the establishment or creation of the auto- 
nomous region? 


MR. BENNAGEN. May I answer that? 

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes. 

MR. BENNAGEN. There is a need for a plebiscite 
within the region to approve the charter. What 1 was 


MR. NOLLEDO. An identical question was asked 
by Commissioner Davide a few hours ago, and my 
answer was that, personally, without binding the Com- 
mittee, it should be considered as a whole, but there is 
an amendment on how to resolve such problem to be 
presented later on. As far as I am concerned and follow- 


MONDAY, AUGUST n, 1986 


201 


ing the democratic process, the entire region should 
be bound by the majority rule. 

MR. SUAREZ. That means if the electorate in the 
three provinces would be more than the electorate in 
the autonomous region. 

MR. NOLLEDO. Then .the organic act cannot be 
granted because as a whole the voters from the three 
provinces will defeat the need for a majority of all the 
voters within the region. 

MR. SUAREZ. Is that the official position of the 
Committee? 

MR. NOLLEDO. That is my interpretation now, but I 
understand that there will be an amendment to be 
presented later on. 


MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). The 
Acting Floor Leader is recognized. 

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION 

MR. ROMULO. Mr. Presiding Officer, in view of the 
time and the fact that we still have many registered 
interpellators, may I move to adjourn until tomorrow 
at nine-thirty in the moming. 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). Is 
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the 
session is adjourned until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the 
moming. 

It was 6:32 p.m. 





*. 1 

4 

i 

i 

I 

I 


f 

I 

( 


1 


A 


TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1986 


203 


R.C.C. NO. 54 
Tuesday, August 12, 1986 


OPENING OF SESSION 

At 9:44 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia 
Munoz Palma, called the session to order. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is called to order. 

NATIONAL ANTHEM 

THE PRESIDENT. Everybody will please rise to sing 
the National Anthem. 

Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem. 

THE PRESIDENT. Everybody will please remain 
standing for the Prayer to be led by the Honorable 
Ahmad Domocao Alonto. 

Everybody remained standing for the Prayer. 

PRAYER 

MR. ALONTO. Wa qaala Rabbukum ud-’uuniii 
‘astafib lakum. And your Lord hath said: Call to Me that 
I may answer your call . . . 

Bismillaahir-Rahmaanir-Rahilim. — In the name of 
Allah, Most Benevolent and Most Merciful. 

We begin in Thy Holy Name, O God, to firm our 
hope for Thy Eternal Grace. 

‘Al-Hamdu LVllaahi RabbVl-halamin; - All Praise 
be to Allah, Lord of all the Worlds; 

Verily none is worthy of praise save Thou, O God, 
as Thou, and only Thou, is the Creator, Protector, 
Preserver and Sustainer of the Universe. 

‘Ar-Rahmaanin—Rahiim; — Most Beneficent, Ever- 
Merciful; 

Thy ever-watchful and inexhaustible grace, O God, 
is what we need most to guide us in this period of 
crises and revolution, of restlessness and anguish, of 
anxiety and frustrations, to light our way amidst our 
nascent but sincere effort of nation-building. 

Maaliki Yawmid-Diin! King of the Day of Judgment; 

We, who are Thy obedient servants in this tiny 
corner of Thy Universe, O God, are fully aware and 
do firmly believe that one day everyone will have to 
render account of all his acts to Thee. 


‘lyyaaka na’-budu wa ’iyyaaka nasta-’iin. — You alone 
we worship; and to You alone we turn for help. 

We affirm that none is worthy of worship and 
devotion, submission and obedience, and subjection 
and servitude, except Thou, O God, and we affirm 
that we are Thy worshippers. Thy subjects and Thy 
slaves; keeping these relations with Thee and Thee 
alone; and so we ask Thy help as Thou art the Lord 
of the whole Universe and Thou hast all powers and 
Thou art the Master of everything; and verily, only 
Thee can give us help for the fulfillment of our cry 
for justice, freedom and democracy. 

‘IhdinasSiraatal-Mustaqiim — Guide us to the straight 
path. 

We confess, O God, that events in this country in 
the past few years have confused our vision and made 
us lose sight of the right way - the way that can lead 
us aright in every walk of life and can keep us free 
from errors and evil consequences and bring success 
in the end, so “Thine Will be done.” 

Siraatal-laziina 'an-amta ‘alay-him — The path of 
those whom Thou hast favoured; 

We affirm our commitment, O God, to the ways of 
those excellent exemplars of human behavior who 
have not deviated a jot away from Thy blessed way 
throughout the whole course of human history — the 
Anbiyya or the Prophets, the Siddiqin or the Faith- 
ful, the Shuhada or the Martyrs, and the Salihin or 
the Righteous - 

Gayril-magzuubi ‘alay-him wa laz-zaaallUin. — Not 
(the path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those 
who go astray . 

Rabbanaa las tuzig quluubanaa ba’-da ‘iz hadaytanaa 
wa hablanaa milladunka rahmattan ’innaka ’Antal- 
Wahhaab. 

Our Lord! Cause not our hearts to stray after Thou 
hast guided us, and bestow upon us mercy from Thy 
Presence. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Bestower! 

Our Lord! We pray for Thy guidance in framing the 
fundamental law of the land and grant that by it, we 
can establish Urrimattun yadu’una ila’l khayr wa ya’ 
muruuna bil ma’ruuf wa yanha’una ani’l Munkar. . 
a nation that invites to goodness, enjoins what is right 
and forbids what is evil. AMEEN. YA RABBAL’ALA- 
MIIN. 


204 


TUESDAY, AUGUST 1 2, 1 986 


ROLL CALL 

THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary-General will call 
the roll. 


THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading: 


Abubakar . . ; . 

. Present* 

Natividad . . . 

. . Present* 

Alonto 

. Present 

Nieva 

. . Absent 

Aquino 

. Present* 

Nolledo .... 

. . Present* 

Azcuna 

. Present* 

Ople 

. . Present 

Bacani 

. Present 

PadiUa 

. . Present 

Bengzon 

. Present* 

Quesada . . . . . 

. . Present 

Bennagen . . . . 

. Present 

Rama 

. . Present 

Bemas 

. Present 

Regalado 

. . Absent 

Rosario Braid . . 

. Present 

Reyes de los . . 

. . Present 

Brocka 


Rigos 

. . Present 

Calderon 


Rodrigo 

. . Present 

Castro de . . . . 


Romulo 

. . Present 

Colayco 


Rosales 

. . Present 

Concepcion . . , 

. . Present 

Sarmiento . . . . 

. . Present* 

Davide 

. . Present 

Suarez 

. . Present 

Foz 


Sumulong . . . . 

. . Present 

Garcia 


Tadeo 

. . Present 

Gascon 


Tan 

. . Present 

Guingona . . . 


Tingson . . . . 

. . Present 

Jamir 


Treflas 

. . Present 

Laurel . . . 


Uka 

. . Present 

Lerum .... 


Villacorta . . . 

. . Present 

Maambong . . 

. . Present 

ViUegas 

. . Present 

Monsod . 



The President 

is present. 




The roll call shows 36 Members responded to the call. 


THE PRESIDENT. The Chair declares the presence of 
a quorum. 

MR. CALDERON. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Assistant Floor Leader is 
recognized. 

MR. CALDERON. I move that we dispense with the 
reading of the Journal of yesterday’s session. 


THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) 
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. 

The Secretary-General will read the Reference of 
Business. 

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS 

The Secretary-General read the following Proposed 
Resolution on First Reading, Petition and Communica- 
tions, the President making the corresponding refer- 
ences: 

PROPOSED RESOLUTION ON FIRST READING 

Proposed Resolution No. 538, entitled: 

RESOLUTION FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 
TO CONGRATULATE SENATOR TANADA. 

Introduced by Hon. Villacorta, Munoz Palma, Bemas, 
Tan, Abubakar, Alonto, Aquino, Azcuna, Bacani, 
Bengzon, Jr., Bennagen, Rosario Braid, Brocka, 
Calderon, de Castro, Colayco, Concepcion, 
Davide, Jr., Foz, Garcia, Gascon, Guingona, Jamir, 
Laurel, Jr., Lerum, Maambong, Monsod, Natividad, 
Nieva, Nolledo, Ople, Padilla, Quesada, Rama, 
Regalado, de los Reyes, Jr., Rigos, Rodrigo, 
Romulo, Rosales, Sarmiento, Suarez, Sumulong, 
Tadeo, Tingson, Trenas, Uka and Villegas. 

To the Steering Committee. 

PETITION 

Petition of the Honorable Commissioners Decoroso R. 
Rosales, Jose D. Calderon, Teodoro C. Bacani, Eulogio 
R. Lerum, Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Adolfo S. Azcuna, 
Teodulo C. Natividad and Jose B. Laurel, Jr., expressing 
support of the Petition of the Honorable Commissioners 
Lugum L. Uka, Napoleon G. Rama, Florenz D. Regala- 
do, Regalado E. Maambong, Jose N. Nolledo, Ma. Teresa 
F. Nieva, Yusup R. Abubakar and Hilario G. Davide, Jr., 
asking the Committee on Human Resources to submi 
to the Constitutional Commission of 1986 a con- 
solidated committee report. 

(Petition No. 2 — Constitutional Commission of 1986) 
To the Committee on Human Resources. 


THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection that we 
dispense with the reading of the Journal of the previous 

session. (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is 
approved. 


APPROVAL OF JOURNAL 

MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that we 
approve the Journal of yesterday’s session. 


Is there any objection? (Silen 
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. 

MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that 
proceed to the Reference of Business. 


COMMUNICATIONS 

Communication from Mr. Dorentino Z. Floresta of the 
Knights of Columbus, Council 3722, Olongapo City, 
saying that if the Filipino people thru its President, 
Corazon C. Aquino, decides to extend the US military 
bases in the Philippines, he strongly recommends that 
the compensation given to the Philippine government by 
the U.S. government for the use of the bases be con- 
sidered rental and the same shall be increased in accord- 
ance with the prevailing rentals paid by the United 
States to Spain, Korea, Japan, Turkey, and Germany; 
that the Labor Code of the Philippines shall be applied 
to the labor-management relationship inside the bases; 
that criminal offenses committed by American service- 


♦Appeared after the roll call 


TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1986 


205 


men must be tried by the Philippine courts; and that the 
Philippine government shall have effective control over 
the bases including the operation of business establish- 
ments. 

(Communication No. 524 - Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and 
Declaration of Principles. 

Thirty-seven letters with eleven thousand seventy-nine 
(1 1,079) signatories with their respective addresses, all 
seeking to include in the Constitution a provision 
obliging the State to protect the life of the unborn from 
the moment of conception. 

(Communication No. 525 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory , and 
Declaration of Principles. 

Letter from Mr. Jaime Z. Bermudez of Agbannawag, 
Rizal, Nueva Ecya, urging the Constitutional Com- 
mission to include provisions on land reform that would 
enable small landowners to recover their lands from 
their tenants. 

(Communication No. 526 — Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Committee on Social Justice. 

Communication from the Council of the Lmty of the 
Philippines, CAP Bldg., 372 Cabildo Street, totrmuros, 
Manila, signed by its President, Henrietta Tambun mg 
de Villa, seeking inclusion in the Constitution t e ngh 
to life from conception” and the integration of reli- 
gious instruction” into the primary and secondary 
educational system. 

(Communication No. 527 - Constitutional Commission 
of 1986) 

To the Steering Committee. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR RAMA I move that we continue consideration 
of Committee ’ Report Nos. 21 and 25 on Proposed 
Resolution No. 51 1, the Article on Local Governments. 

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) 
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. 

The honorable Chairman and members of the Com- 
mittee on Local Governments are requested to occupy 
the front table. 

MR. VILLACORTA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villacorta is recog- 
nized. 


MR. VILLACORTA. In the Reference of Business, 
there was a petition submitted by the honorable Com- 
missioner Decoroso Rosales, et al, requesting the 
Committee on Human Resources to submit to the 
Constitutional Commission a consolidated committee 
report. This puzzles the members of the Human Re- 
sources Committee because we had already a long time 
ago submitted a consolidated report. This gives a wrong 
impression to the public about the efficiency of our 
Committee. We do not fuUy understand the intention 
of this petition. 

SUSPENSION OF SESSION 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended for a few 
minutes to check with the Secretariat. 

It was 9:58 a.m. 

RESUMPTION OF SESSION 

At 10:13 a.m., the session was resumed. 

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed. 

The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commis- 
sioner Villacorta be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villacorta is 
recognized. 

MR. VILLACORTA.* Madam President, given the 
stature of our Commission, I shall try to be as restrained 
and as respectful as possible. But I would like to be just 
and fair to the members of our Committee on Human 
Resources who worked very hard in coming out with a 
report, which we submitted to the Commission as 
scheduled last July 15, 1986. 

Because of the aggressive efforts of one lobbyist, Don 
Miguel Cuenco, some Commissioners signed two peti- 
tions which came as a surprise to us because we feel that 
after a committee has submitted its report, whatever 
additional recommendations Members of the Commis- 
sion as well as lobbyists may have should be presented 
on the floor. Nonetheless, because we feel that we 
should be courteous to our colleagues in the Com- 
mission, we responded immediately to the first petition 
of some Members of the Commission. 

This first petition basically requested that the teach- 
ing of Philippine geography and folk songs as well as 
making Spanish an official language be incorporated in 
the Constitution. We patiently listened last week in this 
meeting we had with Don Miguel Cuenco which I had to 
adjourn prematurely because there was endless talk 
from this resource person who was not even a Member 
of the Constitutional Commission. We are now con- 
fronted with a second petition asking the Committee on 
Human Resources to submit to the Constitutional 


206 


TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1986 


Commission of 1986 a consolidated committee report. 
This further puzzles us. As we read this petition which 
was signed by Commissioners Rosales, Calderon, Bacani, 
Lerum, Davide, Azcuna, Natividad and Laurel, there is a 
statement here that “with the exception of the Honor- 
able Wilfrido Villacorta, Chairman of the Committee 
who is Dean of the College of Liberal Arts of De La 
Salle University and the Honorable Serafin V. C. Guin- 
gona, Chancellor of Araneta University, to our know- 
ledge there is no educator in the Committee.” Actually, 
there are competent educators among the supporters of 
making English, Spanish and Filipino continue as the 
official languages of our country. 

This is a very erroneous and unjust statement because 
aside from Commissioner Guingona and myself, there 
are six other educators in the Committee, namely: Com- 
missioner Quesada who has been teaching for 16 years; 
Commissioner Rosario Braid, for 30 years; Commis- 
sioner Bennagen, for 17 years; Commissioner Uka, for 
30 years; Commissioner Trenas, Dean of the College of 
Law of Iloilo University; and Commissioner Rigos. 

I would like to give our fellow Commissioners who 
signed the petition the benefit of the doubt. But this is 
just my plea to our colleagues in the Commission: Let 
us not allow one lobbyist to create internal dissension 
in this Commission. It is an affront to the integrity of 
t IS Commission, and we would like an explanation 
from our coUeagues about the background of this 
second petition. 

Thank you very much. Madam President. 

• Madam President, may I be recog- 
nized? > j b 


THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Brocka is recog 
mzed. 

MR. BROCKA. Thank you very much. Madam Pres 
ident. 

addition to what Commissioner Villacorta said, 

u signed this petitio 

w ether they read what they were signing before the 
signe . get the feeling that when they signed this, it 
m eference to the old man who happens to be thei 
eac er m (^bu. As Commissioner Villacorta said, w 

Request of the lobbyist last week and 
was short of bemg absurd. 

the CnmmicB- ^ Would like to question whethe 

thev were signed this petition read wh£ 

in this nartieni^^ because some of the things that wei 

innk like iHint ^ ^ Just SO absurd they make i 
look like idiots. It says here: 

THE COMMIT- 
TEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES HAS RESOLVED TO 

INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION WITH 
THE SECTIONS THAT THE AUTHORS OF RESOLU- 
TION NO. 141 SEEK TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW 


CONSTITUTION, WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT 
THEY ARE NOT CONFLICTING. Therefore, we, the 
undersigned Commissioners, respectfully ask the Commit- 
tee on Human Resources to approve the following Articles 
which we beg leave to discuss one by one. 

1. Section 6 . The television owned, controlled and/or 
supervised by the Government shall accord prime time to 
Spanish programs. 

The Philippine Government shall also have radio broad- 
casts in Spanish addressed to Latin America . . . 

2. Section 7 . For the preservation and propagation of 
the Spanish language, the Government shall provide for the 
teaching of courses on journalism in Spanish at the Univer- 
sity of the Philippines, University of Sto. Tomas, and Uni- 
versity of San Agustin in Iloilo. The Minister of Culture, 
Education and Sports shall make representations to the 
Spanish Government, through the Minister of Foreign 
Affairs, to open courses on Spanish journalism at the 
Centro Cultural de Espaha in Makati, which is a very good 
school for the teaching of Spanish . . . 

3. Section 19 of Resolution 451 reads: 

A sum of one-half million pesos has to be appropriated 
for the teaching of our native songs in the elementary and 
high school levels . . . 

4. Section 13. The President of the Philippines shall 
create a Board on Textbooks on Philippine and World 
Geography to be composed of the Minister of Education, 
Culture and Sports, the Director of Coast and Geodetic 
Survey, the Director of the Bureau of National Census and 
a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs . . . 

5. “Section 14. The President of the Philippines shall 
create an office to be named as Deputy Minister of Educa- 
tion, Culture and Sports for the Spanish language and the 
educational systems of Spain, the Spanish-speaking coun- 
tries, including the educational system for the Hispanic 
Americans in U.S.A.”. . . 

6. The Authors of Resolution No. 451 hereby amend 
SECTION 5 thereof to read as follows: 

“SECTION 5. A new Ministry entitled ‘Ministry for the 
Conservation and Promotion of the Cebuano, Tausug and 
the Cebuano in Indonesia’ is created. The President of the 
Philippines shall appoint the Minister, who shall be a 
Moslem Tausug, to represent the Tausugs in the City of 
Jolo and in the six hundred islands of the Sulu Archipe- 
lago . . . 

7. “SECTION 9. The teaching of Spanish shall be com- 
pulsory in the fourth, third, second and first years in high 
school, public as well as private. 

Discursos de Malolos y Poesias Filipinas, . . . Spanish 
grammar . . . shall be taught compulsory in the second and 
first years in the high school, public as well as private . . . 

I stood up mainly because while it is the prerogative 
of private citizens to petition, I wish that they would 
think first before signing their names. Otherwise, what 
happens is that we do take time out to listen and go 


TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1986 


207 


through meetings that are just so absurd they make us 
look like idiots. 

Thank you very much. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized. 

MR. RAMA. I ask that Commissioner Bacani be 
recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog- 
nized. 

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, I do not want 
to go into further explanations of this. I would like to 
move that the petition be withdrawn. I do not want to 
go into further explanations not because I have not read 
the petition; I have read it but I signed it for it to be 
heard. And I think it is right that we should ask the peti- 
tion to be heard. However, I ask that it be withdrawn so 
that it will not cause trouble anymore. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commis- 
sioner Calderon be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Calderon is recog- 
nized. 

MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I do not deny 
the right of Commissioner Villacorta or of any of my 
colleagues in this Commission to pinpoint a lobbyist but 
I certainly deem it unethical and unkind to mention 
names, especially if the person mentioned had an out 
standing record as a parliamentarian and as a patnot. 
That is all. Madam President. 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commis- 
sioner Maambong be recognized. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Maambong is 
recognized. 

Is this still on the same subject matter? 

MR MAAMBONG. Yes, Madam President. I do not 
mind saying in reply to the query of Commissioner 
Brocka that I was one of those who signed the first peti- 
tion not the one under consideration. As a matter of 
fact’ in compliance with the invitation of the Commit- 
tee ’on Human Resources in the last meeting convened 
because of that petition and for some other matters in 
the agenda, I appeared before the Committee and I 
would like to confirm that one of the issues taken up by 
that Committee in relation to this petition was the 
possibility of constitutionalizing the teaching of geo- 
graphy and folk songs at the insistence of Don Miguel 
Cuenco. When he was heard by the Committee, he 
insisted that Spanish be used as one of the national 


languages. Those were the issues taken. Madam 
President. 

I had a particular reason for signing the petition 
because aside from the issues raised by Don Miguel 
Cuenco, I was very much interested in the evolution of 
the national language. As a matter of fact, upon my 
representations and through the kindness of the Chair- 
man, Commissioner Villacorta, and with the help of 
Commissioners Brocka and Rigos, I was able to con- 
vince the Committee to insert as a last sentence on 
Section 22 of their report. Committee Report No. 29, 
the following provision: IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF 
THE NATIONAL LANGUAGE, DUE CONSIDERA- 
TION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE DIALECT AND 
LANGUAGES OF THE FILIPINOS or a statement to 
that effect. This was approved by the Committee, after 
which I felt that my job was finished. But since Don 
Miguel Cuenco was still there and he was insisting on 
other points, I suggested to the Committee — and this 
is on record — that the teaching of geography was 
already covered by Section 3 of the committee report 
which provides that all educational institutions should 
instill political consciousness. I felt that if one wants to 
be politically conscious, he should know what is around 
him and that involves the teaching of geography. 

Regarding the teaching of folk songs, I also made it of 
record that it is, in fact, covered by Section 29 of the 
report which provides that the State shall support and 
encourage the development of a Filipino national 
culture. 

Regarding the Spanish language, the Committee was 
very emphatic in telling Don Miguel Cuenco that the 
Committee had already decided that the national 
language would not be included in the committee 
report. So at that moment, I felt I had done my job. We 
heard Don Miguel Cuenco and I thought the issue was 
closed. It is unfortunate that a second petition had been 
filed here, but I do not think we should begrude the 
other Commissioners for it. Probably the other Com- 
missioners also have a point to share with the Commit- 
tee in much the same way that I did which I shared with 
the Committee and which the Committee kindly 
acceded to. 

• That is all I wanted to say. Madam President. I do not 
think there was any affront on the part of some Mem- 
bers of the Commission in signing this petition. 

Thank you very much. 

MS. QUESADA. Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Quesada is recog- 
nized. 

MS. QUESADA. I would like to express, in behalf of 
the Committee, a desire to delete or scrap out this 
second petition because it puts the members of the 
Committee in a very disparaging light. It is in that par- 
ticular kind of tone that we responded or reacted to this 


208 


TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1986 


early reading of a resolution that has been officially 
entered into the Journal. So, I think it is also but fair to 
react because we are very reactive human beings and we 
feel that this kind of unjust accusation of being incom- 
petent would have to be corrected immediately. 

Thank you, Madam President. 

THE PRESIDENT. There is still a motion pending 
before us, the motion of Commissioner Bacani to with- 
draw this petition on the ground that it seeks to require 
the Committee on Human Resources to submit a con- 
solidated report, which report, according to Com- 
missioner Villacorta, has already been submitted since 
July 12 and this has been verified by the Secretariat. 

Therefore, the Chair finds the motion to withdraw in 
order. 

Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears 
none; the motion is approved. 


CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED 
RESOLUTION NO. 511 
(Article on Local Governments) 
Continuation 

PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE 

MR. RAMA. Madam President, the Committee on 
is now ready to continue the 
^hberation of Committee Report Nos. 21 and 25 on 
Proposed Resolution No. 51 1. 

Is there any objection? (Silence) 
t Chair hears none; the motion is approved. 


MR. RAMA. I ask that Commissioner Colayco be 
recognized. 


niz^^^ Colayco is recog- 


MR. COLAYCO. Thank you. Madam President. I 
nave a question or two to ask the Committee. During 
one o the meetings of this Committee where I was 
present, I remember that a big group of representatives 
rom e